Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Profiling Horticulture Cooperatives, Government Departments and Programs Supporting
Horticulture and Agro-processing in 16 Selected Counties
Prepared by
Joseph Auma, MSc
Peter Shimon, PhD
January 2019
2
Acknowledgement This study would not have been achieved without funding from Netherlands government through its Embassy
in Kenya. We acknowledge the role of SNV Netherlands Development Organizations and its partners -
Solidaridad, HIVOS and Delphy in its efforts to develop farmers in Kenya and specifically in the sixteen counties
where HortIMPACT programme has been implemented since 2015. Specifically, we acknowledge the role of
Bernard Ndolo, HortIMPACT programme Advisor and his team for his good coordination and provision of
transport and other logistics especially enumerators training in Nakuru and Nairobi, scoping field visits and for
trusting our delivery capacity in this assignment.
Similarly, we acknowledge all our contact persons and key Informants in the sixteen counties mainly County
Directors of Agriculture and their extension teams; county crops and horticultural crops officers, County
commissioner of cooperatives and staff, County Coordinating units of the Swedish funded development
programme-ASDSP, County coordinating unit of the World Bank Funded Programmes-NARIG and KCSAP and
many other stakeholders, partners and collaborators in horticulture for finding time to provide useful
information used in writing this report. We also acknowledge the many enumerators and supervisors who had
to crisscross vast counties in very short time engaging horticultural farmers, group and cooperative officials
for interview.
Finally, our greatest gratitude goes to the smallholder horticultural farmers in 64 organizations in the 16
counties who had to be mobilized at short notice, sat long hours providing information compiled in this report.
Your efforts are not taken for granted.
3
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................... 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 5
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 8
1.1. Overview of Kenya Market-Led Horticulture Program ............................................................. 8
1.2. Background of the project area ........................................................................................... 8
1.3. Rationale for Profiling Farmer organizations .......................................................................... 8
1.4. Scope of the Assessment ................................................................................................... 9
2. TECHNICAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 9
2.1 Scoping........................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Capacity Measurement Tool ............................................................................................... 9
2.3 The revised capacity and performance assessment tool ........................................................ 10
2.4 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 10
2.5 Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 11
3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................. 11
3.1 Bomet County ................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Bungoma County ............................................................................................................ 14
3.3 Nandi County ................................................................................................................. 15
3.4 Narok County ................................................................................................................. 17
3.5 Kajiado County .............................................................................................................. 18
3.6 Kiambu County .............................................................................................................. 19
3.7 Kitui County .................................................................................................................. 21
3.8 Laikipia County .............................................................................................................. 22
3.9 Machakos County ........................................................................................................... 25
3.10 Makueni County ............................................................................................................. 26
3.11 Meru County .................................................................................................................. 26
3.12 Nakuru County ............................................................................................................... 28
3.13 Nyandarua County .......................................................................................................... 29
3.14 Nyeri County ................................................................................................................. 31
3.15 Transzoia County ............................................................................................................ 33
3.16 Uasin Gishu County ........................................................................................................ 34
3.17 Summary of the SBOs assessment results across the counties .............................................. 38
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 39
4.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 39
4.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 40
5.0 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 43
Appendix 1: List of cooperatives identified during scoping phase of the study ..................................... 43
SUMMARY FOR ANALYSIS OF CAPACITIES ACROSS THE COUNTY ..................................................... 45
Appendix 2: Assessed SBOs Profiles by County .............................................................................. 46
2.1 Bomet County cooperatives assessment reports .............................................................. 46
2.2 BUNGOMA County cooperatives assessment reports ......................................................... 53
2.3 NANDI County Assessment Reports ............................................................................... 58
2.4 NAROK County Reports ................................................................................................ 62
2.5 KIAMBU County Reports ............................................................................................... 70
2.6 Kajiado County Assessment Reports by CBO ................................................................... 75
2.7 Kitui County Assessment Reports by SBO ....................................................................... 79
2.8 Laikipia County Assessment Reports by SBO ................................................................... 83
2.9 Machakos County Assessment Reports by SBO ................................................................ 87
2.10 Makueni County Assessment Reports ............................................................................. 91
2.11 Meru County Assessment Reports .................................................................................. 95
2.12 Nakuru County Assessment Reports by SBO.................................................................... 99
2.13 Nyandarua County Assessment Reports by SBO ............................................................. 103
2.14 Transzoia County Assessment Reports by SBO .............................................................. 105
2.15 Uasin Gishu County Assessment Reports by SBO ........................................................... 110
4
ACRONYMS ASDSP Agriculture Sector Development Support Programme
HortIMPACT The Kenya Market-led Horticulture Program
SNV Netherlands Development Organization
SBOs Small Business Organizations
OCAT Generic organizational capacity assessment tool
KCSAP Kenya climate Smart Agricultural Project-World bank Funded
NARIG National Agricultural and Rural Inclusive Growth-World bank funded project
ADB Africa Development Bank
CBOs Community-based Organizations
POs Producers organizations
NIB National Irrigation Board
NORAD The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
CDF Constituency development Fund
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
USAID United States Agency for International Development
AVCD Accelerated Value Chain Development
CIP International Potato Centre
KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Cervices
HCD Horticultural Crops Directorate
KCEP-CRAL Kenya Cereals Enhancement Programme - Climate Resilience Agricultural Livelihood (window)
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Kenya Market-led Horticulture Program (HortIMPACT) is a 5-year project (2015-2019), funded by the
Netherlands government through its Embassy in Kenya and implemented by SNV Netherlands Development
Organization and consortium partners Solidaridad, HIVOS and Delphy. The program is contributing to
increased food security, increased incomes and a dynamic and sustainable horticulture sector in Kenya, with
a strong focus on private sector development. The HortIMPACT programme funded this study to profile
cooperatives and farmers groups in horticultural value chains and to understand key stakeholders, their core
activities and level of development to inform the right mix for partnership in scaling interventions (business
cases) in 16 counties in Kenya; Kiambu, Kajiado, Nyeri, Meru, Nyandarua, Laikipia, Nakuru, Narok, Bomet,
Uasin Gishu, Nandi, Bungoma, Transnzoia, Kitui, Makueni, and Machakos counties. The specific objectives
addressed by the study were to;
i. Understand farmer organizations (groups or cooperatives) specializing in horticulture in the selected
counties.
ii. Understand women’s and youth groups and SME associations related to agri-business activities
iii. Understand government programs and departments that offer support services (technical and
financial) to the horticulture industry at the national level and in the selected counties.
Methodology
The study employed a two-phased approach to data and information collection; 1) County scoping study and
2) individual organization assessment using a standardized and customized Small Business Organizations
(SBO) assessment tool. Scoping study conducted by the consultants preliminarily identified horticultural
organizations assessed in the second phase and also collected primary information on horticulture from
stakeholders, their roles in the value chains and horticultural related infrastructure development in each
county. Key sources of information in the scoping phase was mainly County department of Cooperatives,
Agriculture and related National and County donor funded projects and programmes.
The individual organizations assessment phase was conducted after recruitment and training of enumerators
and county supervisors for each county. The training on the administration of the assessment tool was
conducted in Nakuru and Nairobi for one day to equip the trainees with the skills to administer the tool to
organization officials and a few members in pairs at the same time and the supervisor to summarize collected
information into a brief report for consolidation by the consultants.
The modified version of the generic organizational capacity assessment tool (OCAT) that has been developed
and refined based on existing knowledge of organization development and experience of non-governmental
organizations and community-based organizations was used. The OCAT was designed to identify an
organization’s relative strengths and weaknesses and generate baseline information needed to develop
strengthening interventions. The standard OCAT identifies and examines seven elements of organization
effectiveness as governance, management capacity, human resources, financial resources, service
delivery, external relations and sustainability in order to provide evidence to strengthen organizational,
managerial, and financial or resource sustainability. The framework recognizes that organization
development is a long-term, interactive, and iterative process that include several distinct stages through
which an organization passes, and which could be summarized in to four growth stages; 1) the start-up or
nascent stage, 2) Development or emerging stage, 3) Expanding, growth, or consolidation stage and 4)
Sustainability or mature.
6
Study Results
The study assessed 64 relevant farmers organizations (groups and cooperatives), at least four in each county
and the results (average score rating ranges between 0.02 and 0.76) shows that all the organization are in
stage one of growth; start-up or nascent stage. This implies that, farmer groups assessed are below average
in capacity and performance (0.19); meaning, most of the SBOs are just beginning to develop structures
required for effective performance in the key capacity areas. Supply, processing and marketing recorded the
highest score (0.22), although below-the-edge performance in terms of development stages. This was followed
closely by operational capacities (0.20). The lowest capacity scores were recorded in leadership (0.13) and
adaptive capacity components (0.19). This suggests need for immediate intervention in all the components
critical for the SBOs to meet their mandates. Across the counties, Nyeri, Trans Nzoia and Uasin Gishu recorded
the lowest capacity and performance scores in almost all areas. Despite all the areas recording lowest
performance, highest performance across the counties was noted in Narok (0.35), Nyandarua (0.34), and
Machakos (0.33) counties. These counties have some of the slightly well-established cooperatives such as
Ole-riondo, Kasinga Mung’ala, Mulot, and Namunyak among others. These areas also have relatively good
access to fertile soils, water and better markets compared to all the other counties.
In Kenya, Cooperatives continue to experience a plethora of challenges that impact their performance as
business organizations and in most cases operate more or less as welfare organizations. The assessed
horticulture farmer groups were found to face a number of constraints that negatively impact on their
performance and therefore service delivery to farmers. There is sufficient and consistent evidence that these
groups are poorly governed, are not dynamic, lack appropriate human resource policies, operate below
capacity, and a good number are financially unsustainable.
Results indicate that apart from overall stated functions or activities of co-operatives, most organizations did
not seem to have concrete, competitive strategies to enhance their growth and development and achieve
member satisfaction. None of the SBOs had a business plan. Further, there was a general lack of diversity of
skills, knowledge and experience among most organization leaderships, with the biggest constraint being
inadequate financial management skills. Except for a few, there is limited management capacity in the
assessed co-operatives with majority still requiring capacity building on certain key issues such as financial
management and strategic planning. Likewise, most organizations have a low active membership compared
to the total registered membership which limits the business volumes and operational efficiency.
Almost all organizations have at least one partner, but the partnership is not structured, or formalized in most
cases, majority being produce buying companies and extension service providers.
Majority of the SBOs lacked adequate staffing especially in management. Even those that had some staffing
generally lacked well established human resources system or plan for staff recruitment, retention, training
and development. Notably, most farmer organizations did not have qualified produce graders and facilities
for produce handling and grading as most relied on buyers like VegPro for produce collection and grading.
Most groups also mentioned inadequate funding as a challenge that is limiting effective service provision and
performance, which calls for interventions in resource mobilization. Almost all of the SBOs operate below
capacity especially due to inadequate facilities. Share contribution in most SBOs is very low and contribution
has since stopped making it hard to run the operations or fund the budgets especially on development or
structural investments. The use of computers or modern technology in business operations was also limited
to a few organizations due to lack of funds. Less than a third of the organizations were operating in their own
premises, with some having rentals and undeveloped plots.
7
Weak linkages in extension service provision to members was observed in majority of the SBOs. The
organizations do not have or provide extension service but rely mostly on development agencies. The services
offered in most organizations included facilitating provision of farm input services, extension services, and
financial services.
Recommendations
Produce collection remains a major problem in most societies which lack essential infrastructure for cold chain
management yet have farmers dispersed over wide radius with poor road network. Produce rejection is also
a major concern in these societies and this affect the competitiveness of the horticulture produce in local,
regional and export market. This is one of the key areas that support programs will need to focus on to
enhance competitiveness. Still there is a very big variation in produce collection during wet and dry seasons.
Opportunity for real and sustainable impact exists in a number of key areas. All groups require capital
investment; linkages with financial service providers was mentioned as the key requirement, and not handouts
from development programs. This coupled with optimism from the leaders, present opportunity for the
program to realize and even surpass the targeted milestones in the program component goals.
The need to focus on strategic planning and business plans development process. It is recommended that the
HortIMPACT program engage professionals who are well-versed in strategic planning process to first sensitize
the leaders of the SBOs on the importance of strategic thinking and planning prior to facilitation to develop
one (strategic plan). This is to avoid the poor-quality strategic plans such as the ones observed during the
evaluation and lack of their implementation.
In overall and based on the capacity scores achieved on performance areas by each of the assessed SBOs the
top ranked 40 SBOs have potential for sustainable partnerships provided that they get support in the critical
areas weakness highlighted for each of the organization.
8
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. OVERVIEW OF KENYA MARKET-LED HORTICULTURE PROGRAM
The Kenya Market-led Horticulture Program (HortIMPACT) is a 5-year project (2015-2019), funded by the
Netherlands government through its Embassy in Kenya and implemented by SNV Netherlands Development
Organization and consortium partners Solidaridad, HIVOS and Delphy. The program is contributing to
increased food security, increased incomes and a dynamic and sustainable horticulture sector in Kenya, with
a strong focus on private sector development. The following three systemic themes, crucial for further
development of the horticulture sector in Kenya are being addressed by the program: 1) inclusion of small
and medium sized, entrepreneurial farmers in supply chains; 2) improving food safety and integrated crop
protection and 3) reducing food losses through efficiency in supply chains.
1.2. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AREA
The study was conducted in 16 counties; Kiambu, Kajiado, Nyeri, Meru, Nyandarua, Laikipia, Nakuru, Narok,
Bomet, Uasin Gishu, Nandi, Bungoma, Transnzoia, Kitui, Machakos, and Makueni. Some of these counties
have high and reliable rainfall coupled with moderate temperatures that is suitable for growing horticultural
crops while others also have irrigation potential already exploited by smallholder farmers in growing various
crops including horticulture. These favors both rain-fed and irrigated production of vegetables, fruits and
potatoes. The production potential is further amplified by the increasing global and local demand for
horticultural produce hence offering a possible opportunity for improving food security and incomes for
majority of the country’s smallholder farmers.
The strategic direction of the sub sector includes improving crop productivity and marketing of horticultural
produce in most counties. This entails enhancing food safety and crop protection management practices, post-
harvest management practices, participation of small and medium sized entrepreneurial farmers in the supply
chain, and funding and support by the national and county governments to improve the capacity necessary
for the realization of market-oriented smallholder horticulture sub sector.
1.3. RATIONALE FOR PROFIL ING FARMER ORGANIZATIONS
This study aims to understand key stakeholders, their core activities and level of development to inform the
right mix for partnership in scaling interventions (business cases) in Kiambu, Kajiado, Nyeri, Meru, Nyandarua,
Laikipia, Nakuru, Narok, Bomet, Uasin Gishu, Nandi, Bungoma, Transnzoia, Kitui, Makueni, and Machakos
counties. The specific objectives are to:
I. Understand farmer organizations (groups or cooperatives) specializing in horticulture in the selected
counties.
II. Understand women’s and youth groups and SME associations related to agri-business activities
III. Understand government programs and departments that offer support services (technical and
financial) to the horticulture industry at the national level and in the selected counties.
The study was expected to deliver a report profiling stakeholder targeted and provide the following key
information;
1. A database with overview on farmer Cooperatives and Groups in horticultural crop value chains in the
selected counties;
2. Overview of National and County Government departments, programs and funds working in
Horticulture and related value chain;
9
3. Other development programs on access to finance, women and youth inclusion/employment in the
horticulture sector within the target counties.
1.4. SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT
The study was conducted in the 16 counties in two stages; 1) Scoping stage which identified groups and
cooperatives in each county for further assessment apart from collection of information on stakeholders,
development partners and departments working with farmers and infrastructure supporting horticultural value
chain. The county visits were restricted to the department of Cooperatives and Agriculture including ASDSP
County coordination unit. In the Cooperative department, a list of legally registered cooperative societies was
collected, and the ones involved in horticulture identified and documented for further assessment. The
department of Agriculture further verified the activities of the farmers’ cooperatives and provided a list of
farmer groups undertaking horticultural production, marketing and value addition. The study therefore relied
on these two departments to derive a list of organizations to be assessed. 2) Each organization was assessed
using a standardized tool; interviewing cooperative and group officials and one or two members and also took
note of any evidence supporting the information provided.
2. TECHNICAL APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Both scoping and assessment approaches were used to identify the SBOs to be assessed and the actual
assessment undertaken. The assessment defined capacity as the ability of the horticulture small business
organizations (cooperative societies, self-help horticulture groups, produce bulking centers, horticulture
associations) to perform functions, solve problems, and set objectives and goals in a sustainable manner.
Consequently, the assessment analyzed the horticulture SBOs current capacities and performance against
desired future capabilities to generate understanding of capacity assets and needs (strengths and
weaknesses).
2.1 Scoping
To identify the cooperatives to participate in the study, the consultant held discussions with the extension and
cooperative staff in the targeted counties during a scoping study based on pre-determined criteria. The criteria
included: the group must be a horticultural farmer organization; formal and legally registered; dealing in
horticultural activities on behalf of members; and dealing in strategic value chains supported by other
stakeholders (county government, national government, etc.). The key informant interviews with extension
and cooperative officers in target counties, complimented with preliminary review of the materials provided
helped identify the key farmers’ organizations to be consulted.
2.2 Capacity Measurement Tool
The consultants employed a modified version of the generic organizational capacity assessment tool (OCAT)
that had been developed and refined based on existing knowledge of organization development and
experience of non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations.
The tool identifies areas of organizational strengths and weaknesses and tracks related changes from one
measurement period to the next. It employs an assessment team that conducts research before completing
an assessment sheet. The data collection steps with the tool allows for systematic cross-checking of perceived
capacities and performance areas with actual or observable facts. The framework is more inductive, building
up to the capacity description, given a rating scale.
The standard OCAT identifies and examines seven elements of organization effectiveness including
governance, management capacity, human resources, financial resources, service delivery, external
10
relations and sustainability in order to provide evidence to strengthen organizational, managerial, and
financial or resource sustainability. The framework recognizes that organization development is a long-
term, interactive, and iterative process that include several distinct stages through which an organization
passes. These are:
1. The start-up or nascent stage: This characterizes an organization in the earliest stages of
development. Management components or structures are non-existent or at their most basic levels.
2. Development or emerging stage: Structures for governance, management practices, human
resources, financial resources, and service delivery are in place and functioning.
3. Expanding, growth, or consolidation stage: The organization has a track record of achievement and
is recognized by its constituency, the government and its agencies.
4. Sustainability or mature: The organization is fully functioning and sustainable, with a diversified
resource base and partnership relationships with national and international networks.
Where an organization falls along this continuum is dependent on its strength and maturity in each of the
seven components of organization effectiveness, described above.
2.3 The revised capacity and performance assessment tool
In employing a modified version of the OCAT, the consultants acknowledged that capacity and performance
assessment is only a tool and not a solution. Prior understanding of the political context within which capacity
is being deployed and a clear rationale for why certain capabilities and performance areas would be required
in future is critical. Equally, the desired capacities and performance areas should not emerge from the
assessment but must be defined prior to the exercise. That inappropriate inputs and identification of desired
capacities and performance areas would have limited the value of the framework for solution design was
readily appreciable to the team. Capacities and performance areas here refer to the horticulture SBOs’
internal components such as leadership structure and culture, adaptive capacity, administrative and internal
functions, processes, technical functions and resources. The revised tool, deliberately referred to as
cooperative capacity and performance assessment tool, identified the following key capacity and performance
areas as vital for long-term achievements of various development goals under HortIMPACT.
Leadership: the extent to which the cooperative’s leaders inspire, prioritize, make decisions, provide
direction, and innovate.
Adaptive capacity: the ability of the cooperative to monitor, assess and respond to internal and external
changes.
Management: ability of the cooperative to ensure effective and efficient use of organizational resources.
Operations: the performance of the cooperative in implementing key organizational and programmatic
functions.
Supply, processing and Marketing: the extent to which the cooperative is effectively carrying out
important dairy related business functions.
Under each of the key capacity and performance areas above, a set of components/sub-capacities were
identified, reviewed and consolidated and then applied to all the 64 SBOs.
2.4 Data Collection
The consultants’ experience with capacity assessment tool such as the one described above is that even with
a comprehensive evaluation criterion, it is quite subjective in nature and therefore scoring or ranking of
capacity depends on the perception of given individuals (assessors) at a particular time. The situation can be
aggravated by high staff turnover and limited education of some of the horticulture small business
11
organizations management committee members. Accordingly, the consultants employed participatory
approach and engaged an assessment team of four members visiting a cooperative in pairs at any given time
per county, and one county coordinator to enhance quality oversight on collected data. One county data
collection coordinator and 4 assessment team members were trained on the revised performance assessment
tool; they visited all the selected horticulture cooperatives in each of the target counties and engaged the
representatives in focus group-type meetings.
The SBO representatives consulted in each case include management committee members (chairman, the
secretary, and one member of the supervisory committee), the manager and two other members (a man and
a woman for gender balance). The two horticulture farmers provided independent view of the performance
of the management of the cooperative in question and of the expectations of the general membership in
terms of service delivery. The data collection process to be employed in the exercise can be summarized as
follows:
Focus group discussions with representatives of management committee (chairman, secretary, one
representative of the supervisory committee), the manager, and two other farmers representing general
SBO membership. Women and youth were represented in these focus groups.
Review of the SBOs documents and records e.g. registration documents, strategic plans, audited
financial reports, horticulture produce supply contracts with buyers/processors, minutes of annual
general meetings, Memorandum of Understanding signed with other agencies etc.
2.5 Data analysis
Because the framework was mainly descriptive, most of the information obtained was of qualitative nature.
These were converted into a quantitative index. Once each sub-capacity area was assessed and assigned a
score from “1” to “4”, representing the relative need of improvement in that specific component/sub-capacity;
the scores were then rolled-up and averaged to give the total score for the capacity area. The capacity scores
were summed up and averaged again to give the total SBO capacity score. Within each county, total capacity
areas and total scores of all the SBOs were averaged to give the respective county scores in terms of capacity
areas and total scores. In the analysis of the data collected, the consultants were guided by the following key
questions:
Which SBOs needed assistance and in which capacity areas? This was identified by the SBOs with the
lowest total capacity scores and lowest scores per capacity area, respectively.
Which counties needed more technical assistance and in which areas? This was identified by the county
with the lowest total and capacity area scores.
Which are the capacities that HortIMPACT needs to focus on and help the SBOs gain more expertise
(identified by the capacities with the lowest scores).
Which are the key performance issues that cut across all the counties that may require joint remedial
action? This was identified by the low capacity scores in all the counties.
3. ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS This chapter presents the results of the SBOs capacity assessment by county. Under each county, a brief
summary of each SBO is presented, then the rating score by performance area and overall are discussed and
the cross-cutting issues on cooperatives in the county that may require joint actions by HortIMPACT. The
detailed assessment on each SBO and prioritized strengths and challenges are presented in Appendix 4. At
the end of county SBOs assessment, prioritization of the cooperatives to inform decision of the HortIMPACT
12
project on the cooperatives to work with is done based on where they fall along the rating continuum. The
rating framework was applied while recognizing the fact that organization development is a long term,
interactive, and iterative process that include several distinct stages through which an organization passes.
These are: 1) the start-up or nascent stage: This characterizes an organization in the earliest stages of
development. Management components or structures are non-existent or at their most basic levels; 2)
Development or emerging stage: Structures for governance, management practices, human resources,
financial resources, and service delivery are in place and functioning, 3) Expanding, growth, or consolidation
stage: The organization has a track record of achievement and is recognized by its constituency, the
government and its agencies; and 4) Sustainability or mature: The organization is fully functioning and
sustainable, with a diversified resource base and partnership relationships with national and international
networks. Hence where the assessed SBOs falls along this continuum is dependent on its strength and maturity
in each of the seven components of organization effectiveness (governance, management capacity, human
resources, financial resources, service delivery, external relations and sustainability), described above.
3.1 BOMET COUNTY
Bomet County has the potential for a number of horticultural crops and top in the list is Irish potato which is
currently part of the National Big Four Agenda, addressing food security in the current government. Passion
fruits, tomatoes, avocado, French beans, bananas, and melons are some of the horticultural crops grown by
smallholders in groups or cooperatives under rain-fed and irrigated horticulture in the 3 of counties irrigation
schemes developed and supported by funding from African Development Bank (ADB) and National Irrigation
Board (NIB). The 3 irrigation schemes are Kaboson which is implemented by National government and ADB is
about to be completed; Negirwet irrigation scheme is constructed by Red Cross society of Kenya and NIB and
in its final stages of completion and producing French beans, water melon, bananas and tomatoes; Chebara
irrigation scheme is supported by NIB is completely operational. Farmers growing Irish potatoes are exploited
by brokers who offer low prices since they are the buyers though some farmers are contracted by NORDA and
DEEPA, two of the major players in the industry. Lack of certified seeds in the region also discourages the
farmers due to high cost of sourcing from Meru. Passion fruits are also grown after TECHNO SERVE promoted
the fruit some of which were exported before woody stem diseases destroyed the crop due to source of
planting material.
Climate Smart Project funded by World bank is being implemented in six Wards since 2017 and promote
bananas, tomatoes and Irish potatoes value addition directly; and avocadoes, mangoes and local vegetables
indirectly. This project will be implemented until 2022. County target value addition equipment and has already
budgeted for a processing plant for horticulture. ASDSP supported Irish potatoes, avocadoes, maize and dairy
groups to be registered as cooperatives. Twiga foods is interested in bananas from the county.
Generally, the findings show that farmer groups are more active in horticultural production than cooperatives
and they partner with development and donor organizations, including SNV, and private sector. The County
government supports horticulture by subsidizing cost of planting material on bananas avocadoes, mangoes,
and macadamia. The four farmers’ cooperatives/ producer’s groups assessed were Ndaraweta producers &
business co-op society Ltd, Nyongores farmers’ co-operative society Ltd, Abosi horticultural cooperative
society Ltd and Isei multi-purpose farmers’ co-operative society Ltd. The detailed profile of each of these SBOs
are presented in Annex 4.1.
Ndaraweta is a cooperative registered in 2014 and located in Bomet Central Sub-County. It had 500 registered
members (M 200, F 300) then but currently have 300 active members (M100, F200). It produces over 10,000
13
packets of crisp per day over peak period but 6400 packets in low seasons all of which are sold in the local
markets to retailers. It has share capital of KES 250,000 (KES 500 per member paid once) with a turn-over
of KES 27.5 million per year up to 2017 before operations stalled due to breakdown of processing plant. It
has 6 casual workers and no permanent staff and when it was operational, acquired inputs especially seeds
and crop protection, and provided extension services to farmers. It has 5-years strategic plan since 2014.
Nyongores is a cooperative registered in 2013 but became operational on October 23rd, 2014. It is located in
Bomet Central sub-county with registered membership of 300 active farmers (M 100, F 200) a reduction from
the initial members of 500 farmers (M 200, F 300). Members of the cooperative are growing avocado and
passion fruits both of which have not been harvested and was at flowering stage when the cooperative was
visited. It has share capital of KES 5,000 and have one casual staff. The cooperative has a strategic plan for
2 years (2018-19).
Abosi is cooperative a registered in 2017 with 73 farmers (M 56, F 17), and currently have 52 active (M 30, F
22) members. Its located in Sotik Sub County, growing and selling tomatoes in the local market to retailers
and has share capital of KES 14600 (73 members each paid 200/= once). It has no staff and no strategic plan
in place.
Isei multi-purpose farmers’ co-operative society Ltd was registered in 2014 with a membership of 200 farmers
(M127, F73) and involved in avocado production and marketing. Co-op is located in Bomet East Sub County
and members have a total of about 6000-6500 avocadoes trees. It has share capital of KES 100,000 (KES
500 for each 200 members paid once). All the avocado produced are sold to retailers in the local market and
has one casual worker. It has strategic plan in place (2014-2019).
From the assessment findings, all the cooperatives in Bomet County are rated as falling in the first growth
stage with Abosi having the highest performance rating at 0.47 compared to Nyangores at 0.36, Isei at 0.3
and Ndaraweta at 0.13. The high overall performance of Abosi cooperatives is because of high rating on
adaptive capacity, management capacity, and leadership.
Ndaraweta cooperatives have the potential to grow especially in Irish potato production and processing into
crisps growth given its resource base, membership and wider catchment area. The cooperative is producing
Irish potatoes of dry matter content suitable for processing and value addition which is unique to Bomet
County. The cooperative still has opportunities in improved management capacity, food processing, packaging
and branding and marketing. It could also computerize its systems, mechanization of all production processes
and put in place HR system. High cost of electricity affects continuous operations of processing and value
addition of potato into crisp and other products.
Similarly, Nyongores farmers’ co-operative society ltd has potential of growth given its membership and wider
catchment area with high potential of avocadoes and passion fruit production. The cooperative has diversified
operation doubling in avocadoes and passion which is a good risk management strategy for the farmers given
the market dynamics. The cooperative is still young, conducted election on 8/9/2018 to elects its new officials.
They have opportunities to improve leadership, organizational management, operations, production, supplies
marketing and financial performance through capacity building.
Abosi horticultural cooperative society limited need capacity building on management and leadership and
support in the infrastructure development as it’s still very weak to conduct the business of a producer group.
It has opportunities in value addition, packaging and branding and marketing. It can innovate and adopt
modern technologies like green house and irrigation to reduce production costs.
14
Isei multi-purpose farmers’ co-operative society limited have a good resource base of established avocadoes
trees, good network of partners, motorcycles and input shop and members who have basic shared beliefs and
values. The cooperative could easily be kick started if provided with basic skills in the six capacity areas. It
has opportunities in food processing, packaging, branding and marketing. It can also explore more in
mechanization, innovation and technology in new varieties and grafting for high productivity.
3.2 BUNGOMA COUNTY
There are many organized groups but only one cooperative involved in horticulture production mainly Bananas,
Tomatoes and Passion fruits. Some of the producer groups practice contract farming particularly in Passion
fruits which is contracted by Fruited Plain Organization. Others horticulture crops in the county include Irish
potatoes, local vegetables, and macadamia.
Development projects in horticulture include a national project funded by IFAD, Smallholder horticultural and
marketing project (SHoMaP) constructed seven horticultural collection centers in the county. These were
handed over to Ministry of Trade after devolution and are located in Webuye west, Kimilili, Kanduyi and Sirisia.
The Constituency Development Fund (CDF) together with SHoMaP co-fund the establishment of tomatoes
processing factory at Kimilili. A Japanese donor funded Project SHEP-PLUS did capacity building to 10
registered farmer groups growing horticultural crops. Agriculture sector development support programme
(ASDSP) is supporting tomatoes value chain and pushing for registration of tomato value chain groups to a
cooperative society. A World Bank funded programme-Community Driven Development and flood mitigation
which was implemented for 8 years since 2006, constructed market centres in Western region including
Bungoma. Community Farmer Field Schools partnered with FAO on capacity building on Irish potatoes to
empower farmers exploit production and marketing potential in the county. Collaboration/partnership exist
between most organizations and some institutions such as ADS, Government departments, CDF and VI Agro
forestry.
The following four organizations, 1 cooperative and 3 CBOs were assessed; 1) 3KM SACCO Farmers’ Co-
operative Society, 2) Kimaeti Farmers CBO, 3) Green Warriors CBO and 4) Namubila Tomato CBO.
The 3MK SACCO is a cooperative registered in 2011 with membership of 281 which increased to1152 members
(M 416/ F 736) and currently have 920 active members of which 20% are youth. It is located in Kimili sub-
county and engaged in bananas production with an average production of 5 tons per week. Produce is sold
to hotels and schools through some contractual arrangements. It has share capital of about 1.77 million and
about KES 2 million in turn-over per year. They are also involved in bulking of banana suckers for sale and
tree seedlings from their nursery. It has employed 3 staff on contract of one year and have a 3 years strategic
plan (2018-2021).
Kimaeti farmers is a CBO registered by the department of culture and social services in 2011 though started
operating in 2009. It is located in Kimaeti ward, Bumula sub-county with membership of 5263 (M 2140, F
3123) and1800 youths. It produces about 270 tons per month of bananas during peak seasons and 100 tons
in low periods mostly sold to Kibabi University. It has share capital of KES 186,000 and also engaged in agro-
forestry and carbon credit. They have four permanent staff and sometimes hire casuals. They have 5 years
strategic plan (2016-2021).
The green Warriors is a farmer field school located in Kabuchai Sub County and started in 2013 with 50
members (M22, F 28) and currently have 23 active members cutting across all the gender including the youth.
It is involved in tomato production and marketing producing over 10000 tons per month and 2500 tons during
low season. All the produce are sold to middlemen and schools. The turn-over is approximated at KES 200,000
15
and share capital status is not clear. This is a group where individual members are growing other crops, no
employed staff and strategic plan.
Namubila is an old CBO registered in 2006 and started operating in 2007 with membership of 600 members
and currently have 900 (M400/F 500) though only 500 active members, 10 percent of whom are youth. The
CBO is producing 400 tons of tomato in peak seasons and 300 in low seasons most of is sold to schools and
middlemen. Contributing shares capital has been a challenge. Members are also producing maize, beans and
practice dairy goat keeping.
From the assessment findings, all the cooperatives in Bungoma County are rated as falling in the first stage
of growth with Namubila Tomato CBO having the highest performance rating at 0.72, the second best in all
the 64 SBOs assessed in the 16 counties. The other three have very low performance ratings; Green Warriors
(0.14), Kimaeti farmers (0.09), and 3KM SACCO (0.04). The high overall performance of Namubila Tomato
CBO is because of high rating on management capacity, adaptive capacity, operational capacity and supply,
processing and marketing. Detailed assessment results of each of the SBO is presented in Annex 4.2.
3.3 NANDI COUNTY
The county is suitable for a number of horticultural crops production including passion fruits, tomatoes,
avocado, tissue culture bananas, vegetables and potatoes. It has a huge production potential, but crop
diseases and marketing are some of the challenges constraining exploitation of this potential. Originally, not
many cooperatives were registered as horticultural crops producers, but more or less took up horticulture as
a form of diversification from dairy as the main activity. From the commissioners of cooperative records, 8
registered cooperatives with certificates dealing in horticulture; 1) Nandi county horticulture in Kapsabet-
planting potatoes mainly with French beans and cabbages, 2) Kabujoy horticulture farmers’ cooperative
society growing passion fruit, 3) Katumu horticulture farmers’ cooperative society, 4) Aldai horticulture youths
Sacco which grow pawpaw and passion with seedlings from the University of Jomo Kenyatta, 5) Mosoriet
horticulture farmers’ cooperative society growing passion fruits, 6) Emdit horticulture farmers’ cooperative
society, 7) Evergreen Mwangaza youths cooperative growing potatoes has 22 members (mainly youth), and
8) Oldoldo youth group in Lesoss with 18 members.
Passion fruit is one of the most important horticultural crops grown for export before it was affected by
woodiness diseases due to poor source of planting material. Potato is currently one of the most important
crops grown by cooperatives and groups and even value added. The International Potato Centre (CIP) with
assistance from USAID funding under Accelerated Value Chain Development (AVCD) programme has been
supporting potato farmers in Nandi and takes credit on Cooperative formation which its main economic
activity is to produce and market Irish potatoes.
A number of other organizations including county government support horticulture production and marketing.
The county government partnered with Safaricom to promote marketing using digital platform (Digifarm) and
already piloting the services in some Sub counties. They are in the process of raising KES 15 Million, which is
the deficit needed to conclude the deal with Safaricom by doing a proposal. Meru Green is supporting French
beans by purchasing and exporting and EPZ plans to establish a vegetable canning factory in the county.
SHoMaP built market centre for selling horticultural produce at Kaptumo, Serem, Labuywa, Tingeret Kibyoki,
Aldai and Kapsingere. Some of these markets are used as collection centres by the Meru Green and others
like Kapsingere has been abandoned by the farmers due to its remote location. NARIG- a World Bank funded
programme (2017-2022) is promoting tissue culture banana, avocadoes, Irish potatoes and Tomatoes. A
USAID funded programme, Accelerated Value Chain Development (AVCD) has been promoting Irish potatoes
16
since 2015 and Irish Potatoes Cooperative was registered in 2017 with 40 members and a manager employed
by the county government. KEPHIS and Exporters ACD are some of the partners involved in horticulture value
chain. There is a farmer’s union, Nandi horticulture, which is an umbrella organization for farmers growing
Irish potatoes and avocadoes. French beans growers have also joined County union of farmers and the county
government planned to construct a canning factory at Aldai sub-county. The sub-county is suitable for avocado
production especially at its border with Kisumu.
During the scoping study, a number of groups, associations, and private sector were found to be active in
horticulture in the county. Lohgrass- Lesos horticulture growers association is on transition to a farmer
cooperative and has 30 acres of land under French beans and avocadoes and was once the county hotspot for
passion fruits and were supported by USAID-KAVES. They are also getting into an MOU with Habet Agro
Company in Eldoret. Habet has ten years contract with farmers and give out the seedlings which is recovered
from marketed avocadoes. Meru greens based at Athi River are buying French beans through farmers they
contract. Siret empowerment cooperative also called Siret out-grower’s empowerment project based in Lesos,
Kapchorwa, Chepkuyu and Nandi hills produce avocadoes. Tea farmers in Nandi hills belong to Siret
empowerment NGO. ELDEM is county driven groups trained in Kaptumo, Eldai and planting avocadoes, passion
fruits, mangoes and operate greenhouse.
Passion fruits failed in the county because farmers were not able to control disease in 2010 due to use of
planting materials sourced individually by farmers. Because of this, the county formulating a policy that the
passion should only be grown with the farmers in cooperatives.
The study assessed four organizations in the county both cooperatives and groups; 1) Ogil Gei farmers self-
help group, 2) Lessos horticultural farmers’ association, 3) Nandi potato growers’ farmers’ cooperative society
and 4) Kaptumo horticultural growers’ association.
Ogil Gei is a self-help group registered in 2016 initially with 270 members but currently has only 20 (M 12,
F8). Its Located in Chesumei Sub – county and used to produce passion fruits before they diversified into bee
keeping. Currently, the group is not producing passion fruit but honey with production capacity of 5000kgs
weekly during peak production and 700kg in low season. It has a share capital of KES 154,000 (KES 500
registration KES 200 monthly contributions) but production turn-over could not be reported as farmers sell
individually. The group has no staff and strategic plan.
Lessos horticultural is a farmers’ association registered in 2008 and initially had a membership of 700 farmers
but currently reduced to 374 of whom 60% are male and 40% female. It is located in Nandi Hills Sub-county
and has been producing passion fruits and French beans with peak production of 15 and 2.5 tones weekly for
passion fruit and French beans respectively. It produces 1 tons of passion fruit in low seasons but targets to
increase French beans to 70 tons weekly. It has Share capital of KES 1.2 million and turn-over of 1million
each week paid directly to farmers. It has 5 clerks seconded by Meru greens, a manager and a seedbed
attendant volunteering. It has a strategic plan (2010-2015) which needs to be updated.
Nandi potato growers is a registered cooperative in 2018 but has been operational since 2012 as a farmers’
association. Initially it had membership of 241 farmers but currently is at 462 (431M and 31 F). It located at
Emgwen Sub County mainly growing potato producing up to 20 tons per hectare. The Share capital could not
be reported but it has turn-over of KES 400,000 paid to farmers weekly. It has one manager but no strategic
plan.
Kaptumo Horticulture growers was registered in 2008 but started operating in 2012. It initially had 42
members, and this has increased to 103 (72 M and 31F) currently. It is located in Aldai Sub-county and use
17
to produce passion fruits up to 20 tons per week. The group could not report their Share capital but reported
turn-over of KES 400,000 paid directly to farmers. It employs one clerk (a member) and management of the
association doubles up as staff. It has no strategic plan.
From our assessment, all the SBOs in Nandi county are rated as falling in the first growth stage with Kaptumo
rated the highest (0.5), Nandi potato rated second at 0.36, Ogil Gei at 0.33 and Lessos at 0.29. A detailed
assessment report of each of these SBOs are presented in Annex 4.3.
With the current state of the horticultural cooperatives/groups, it is important to note the need of supporting
them both in capacity building and infrastructure development for their growth and expansion. Partners like
International Potato Centre (CIP) under Accelerated Value Chain Development Program (AVCD) supported
Nandi Potato Farmers’ Cooperative Society, who are now in the process of producing the potato certified seeds
for the farmers in the county. Concerning membership, it is realized that most groups are stagnating and
sensitization on other horticultural value chains i.e. Avocado and French beans could be done to bring more
farmers onboard and participate in production. In conclusion, strengthening of the management committee
on business management skills and governance will assist in the growth.
3.4 NAROK COUNTY
The county is suitable for variety of horticultural crops apart from Irish potatoes. Some horticultural crops are
grown under irrigation scheme; Mosiro and Narosora. Tomatoes, Onions, Capsicum, snow peas, and sugar
snaps are some of the horticultural crops grown under irrigation. Avocado especially the Hass variety has been
promoted by the County government and farmers are in the process of being contracted by Songoroi Company
Limited which provide seedlings whose cost will be recovered at marketing. Apart from avocado, farmers are
also growing passion fruit. A handful of organization both public and private support horticulture in the county.
A new World Bank project-NARIG coordinated by the county is supporting tomatoes value chain in the County.
Agriculture sector development support program (ASDSP) is working with farmers with an effort to develop
value chain specific producer organizations. ADB is supporting development of smallholder irrigation schemes
while SNV emphasis capacity development of horticultural farmers and groups to exploit production and
marketing potential. Most SBOs in the county have a strong network of partners including input suppliers,
output marketing outlets and processors. Investors such as banks as well as contract markets are part of the
network to ensure the smooth flow of production from farmers to buyers.
During scoping study, four horticultural organizations was selected for assessment; two horticultural
cooperative societies and two horticultural community-based organizations. The organizations include 1)
Mosiro International Community Based Organization growing tomatoes and other horticultural crops under
irrigation, 2) Mulot Horticultural farmers growing Avocado and selling to Songoroi Company directly, 3) Mau
Farmers Initiative Community Based Organization growing arrange of horticultural crops and 4) Namunyak
Horticulture Cooperative Society Limited grows Avocado.
Mau farmers was registered by the department of culture and social services in 2015 initially with membership
of 100 which has declined to 50 and only 35 are active. It is located in Cow Forty area, Narok North Sub-
county. Farmers were initially engaged in production of Snow peas, Sugar snaps and Passion fruits and most
produce were sold by farmers directly to COLRHUT, which is a Belgium based organization. Though some
farmers still produce these crops, COLRHUT has managed to influence MAU Farmers Initiative to engage in
Irish potato production. The CBO is currently targeting Irish Potato production and all its members are growing
the crop which are yet to be harvested. The organization therefore could not report on Share capital, turn-
over and profitability given the nature of its operations. Infrastructures in place included grading house, tap
18
water and office space which was supported by COLRHUT was on a road reserve and therefore removed by
the Authority. They have no written strategic plan but resolved that 2019 should be the year to source input
together, target export market, and reduce post-harvest losses by 80%.
Mosiro is a registered CBO located in Narok East Sub-county since 2006 and became operational in 2008.
Initially it had 16 members, but currently membership increased to 32 in total. The produce is sold by individual
members to local market and have a grading shed, stores, and irrigation facilities as part of infrastructure.
The CBO has no permanent employee could hire casuals when need a rise. It has no strategic plan but an
action plan which is updated every year.
Mulot is a registered cooperative society since 2014 and located in Ilmotiook Ward, Narok West Sub-County.
Initially it had 249 registered members which increased to 300, but only 100 are active. Production is sold to
Songoroi Company limited by farmers directly and Share capital could not be reported at the time of the field
visit. It has input stores, a machine for hire, transport services but operating in a rented office. They specialize
in Grafted Avocado Hass Variety which they sale to Songoroi Company Limited which also hires labour for
harvesting the crop. The price ranges between KES 10 and 18 per kilo excluding KES 3 per kilo remitted
directly to the cooperative by the Company. A significant proportion of the produce are rejected due to
infestations which could be prevented if chemical control was allowed.
Namunyak is a cooperative registered in 2017 and located in Enaibelbel Location, Narok North Sub County. It
has 49 members and 23 are very active. Farmers became members after registration but Share capital was
not reported. It expects to harvest its first crop in 2019 and already negotiating contract with Songorai
Company Limited to buy avocado. The cooperative is endowed with a wide membership base for produce
collection with reasonable acreage under crop which is expected to give cooperative high turnover.
Findings from our assessment of the four farmer organizations in the County shows that all the organizations
fall in the first growth stage with Namunyak rated the highest (0.61), Mulot farmers rated second at 0.57,
Mau farmers third at 0.5 and Mosiro last at 0.22. A detailed assessment report of these organizations is
presented in Annex 4.4
3.5 KAJIADO COUNTY
Horticulture production in Kajiado County is undertaken mostly in Kajiado South Sub County. Among the
horticultural crops grown are tomato French beans and passion fruits. Currently, key departments and
programmes supporting horticulture production in the County include county government department of
agriculture, Agricultural sector development support programme (ASDSP), KCSAP, and SHIVAP. Four SBOs
were assessed in Kajiado County following the scoping exercise undertaken in the county. The four comprised
of Friends of Kilimanjaro Initiative (CBO), Namelok Vegetable Growers (CBO), Eporo Women Group (SHG),
and Rombo Cooperative Society. The detailed profile of each of these SBOs are presented in Annex 4.5.
Friends of Kilimanjaro is a registered CBO operating in Kajiado South Sub County at the base of Mt. Kilimanjaro
hence the name. It mainly comprised of several sub groups made of small-scale farmers producing French
beans under contract by VegPro Ltd to supply the produce for export. It has several collection centers and a
grading shade. The group management has several educated members with some knowledge in SBO
management. Through assistance from other stakeholders the group has been able to come up with an
implementable strategic plan for guiding the CBO. The main goal of the group is to be registered as cooperative
dealing with horticultural production and dairy farming in the Sub County.
Namelok Vegetable Growers on the other hand, comprised of 47 members and is situated in Kimana Ward of
Kajiado south sub county. The group mainly deals with production of horticultural crops like French beans and
19
has been contracted by exporting companies. They operate a collection center for the produce. Currently the
group does not have a strategic plan may be due to a leadership characterized by little or no education.
Eropo women group is a self-help group located in Namelok, Kimana Ward. The group is registered with the
social services and their main activity revolve around table banking despite most of the members being
horticultural farmers. Most of the members have little or no education, however, have received several
trainings from the government extension programmes and other agencies. Through assistance from Small
Holder Horticulture Development Programme (SHDP), the group acquired a tomato processing machine which
is not functional due to some infrastructures being incomplete. Several collaborators have shown interest
through an MOU to make the machinery start operation.
Rombo cooperative is a young cooperative formed by horticultural farmers mainly located in Rombo Ward of
Kajiado south sub county. The group is registered with the department of cooperative. Their main goal was to
overcome the exploitation of farmers by middle men and give some credit to their members. It comprises of
120 active members and have a total capital of KES 400, 000. They have also rented an office in Rombo with
2 casual employees. They have a strategic plan but not professionally done, however they have been receiving
several trainings from several relevant collaborators to improve on management.
From the assessment findings, all the assessed SBOs are rated as falling in the first growth stage. In terms of
performance, Eropo Women group has the highest average rating across all the performance areas at 0.48,
followed by Rombo farmers’ cooperative at 0.15, Namelok Vegetable Growers at 0.11 and Friends of
Killimanjaro at 0.1 in that order. The high rating of Eropo women group is due to its high rating in management
capacity, operational capacity, adaptive capacity, leadership, and supply, processing and marketing.
3.6 KIAMBU COUNTY
Horticultural cooperatives in Kiambu County are few and inactive because individual producers prefer to sell
their own produce in one of the biggest markets in Kenya, Nairobi. The huge demand in Nairobi and its
environment creates a big and ready market and it may not make economic sense for farmers to sell produce
through cooperatives or groups due to better and competitive prices faced by individual horticultural
producers. Tissue culture Bananas is one of the key horticultural crops produced in the county and supported
by national donor funded programme-ASDSP. Irish potatoes in Lari, Amaranthus and other vegetables are
some of the horticultural crops produced in the county with ready local (Nairobi) markets. Export flowers are
also grown in Limuru and Kikuyu sub counties.
Gatundu agri-business cooperative society dealing in tissue culture banana is one of the cooperatives
supported by ASDSP which has been making effort to bring groups growing bananas together to form an apex
body in Kiambu sub-county. Gatundu groups came together for marketing reasons and each group has a
member representing them at the apex body. The apex body is not as strong as the smaller groups. Similar
bananas growing groups are also found in Githunguri.
ASDSP promotes bananas value chain by encouraging actors to specialize in bananas ripening currently
undertaken by Twiga processors which is ripening bananas for farmers at a fee and before collected by farmers
and traders to sell. This results to in availability of uniformly ripened bananas in the market giving traders and
farmers easy time in concentrating on banana production and selling respectively and discourages unhygienic
methods of bananas repining used by individual producers and traders. This further helps in bananas storage
and quality assurance. In Lari, there are chemical companies working with farmers in crop protection products.
Other stakeholders in horticulture production and marketing in Kiambu county includes Horticultural exporters,
seed companies, KALRO-Irish potato research station at Tigoni, KALRO Katumani promoting Amaranthus in
20
Limuru, Japanese SHEP-plus in Kiambu sub county under taking capacity building of farmers, National
government funded Urban and peri urban farming project, Vine yard organization supporting Kariko Irish
potato groups which has a saving of up to 5M.
Horticulture related Infrastructure in the county include cold storage facility in Limuru which is managed by
Horticultural Crop Directorate (HCD).
Challenges in horticulture industry in the county is the weak farmers Cooperatives due to readily available
market of horticultural produce. The need for cooperatives to help in bulking and selling may not make
economic sense in this scenario. There are a lot of horticulture activities that farmers depend on daily basis
as livelihood unlike the cooperative that accumulative payment to monthly. There are a lot of crop wastages
during rainy seasons and the surplus is sold at low prices than production cost. Food safety standard is a
challenge as farmers spray bananas with chemicals for quick ripening to reach the market. Capacity building
of the cooperatives on local market standard of handling the produces would help addressing this challenge.
The study assesses four organizations, two cooperatives and two farmers groups; Gatundu north agribusiness
cooperative society, Zuri Blooms farmers’ cooperative society limited, Kabunge commercial village self-help
group and Kariko unity group. The detailed profile of each of these SBOs are presented in Annex 4.6
Gatundu Agribusiness Cooperative Society is located in Mangu Ward, Gatundu North Sub County of Kiambu
County. The cooperative was registered in June 2014 and started operating in the same year. It started with
a membership of 90 (45m, 45f) but currently there are 12 (5F, 7M) members who are all active. The main
objective of the group is processing of bananas to various products such as banana flour, crisps and chips. In
peak production, over 80kgs/ month (sunny season) of bananas products are processed and 40kgs /month in
low season (wet seasons).
The cooperative is legally registered as a cooperative but facing various challenges on leadership and
operational procedures. The members claim that the cooperative became inactive due to lack of raw bananas
for processing and unable to compete with other traders offering better prices. The cooperative has no Share
capital, a written strategic plan or computer for capturing records or data.
Zuri Blooms Farmers’ Cooperative Society Limited is located in Bibirioni Ward, Limuru Sub County. The
cooperative started in1997 as a self-help group (Kibera SHG) but started operating as a cooperative on 8th,
March 2017. Currently there are 120 members (53m, 67f) who are growing the arabicum cut flowers. About
30 members (18m, 19f) are marketing through the cooperative and peak season is between Dec-March where
the cooperative market over 600kgs/week. They have a turnover of 5.1 million from 2nd Dec to 26th May
2017. Other activity jointly performed is transport.
The cooperative employ 8 casual workers per week and collection centre is located at HCD Limuru. They are
in the process of developing a strategic plan and the board is composed of 7 members (3F, 4M) who meet
quarterly and have a wide range of professional’s background. The cooperative partners with relevant entities
such as Flora Holland, FPEAK and Osho chemicals and have been trained on marketing and safe use of
chemicals.
Kabunge commercial village SHG is located in Kirenga Ward, Lari Sub County. The group was registered in
2015 and started operations in the same year. The initial registered members were 83 (63F, 20M), but
currently they are 33 (23F, 10M) with 25 active members. The group produces indigenous vegetables and
sells together to Supermarket with the assistance of Farm Concern International. Peak production is over 1-
ton (bunches) per day and 150 Kgs in low season per day. One of the members is trained on quality assurance
21
and as the marketing officer checks on quality of produce on-farm before delivering to the collection centre.
This ensures that all produce that is size-graded is sold out.
Kariko Unity Group is located in Kinale Ward, Lari Sub County and Irish potatoes is the main value chain. The
group was registered on 1st January 2011 and become operational on 17th July 2008. The group consists of
80 members (72 M 8F). The board is well balanced in terms of gender and experienced (skills). Timely financial
reporting and auditing is done twice a year. The group has constructed a permanent building installed with
electricity in their own land. They also establish a crop on the land and hire casual workers on tender. They
have an agro-vet where members and other non-members purchase farm input. Members are allowed to get
inputs on credit or check-off. The casual workers are seasonally employed but the agro-vet attendant is a
permanent employee. The group lacks a written budget and documentation is manual. Annual subscription of
KES 500 is paid up by members who also benefit from the credit facility of the group. They have Share capital
of about KES 6.2 Million and annual turn-over of KES 1.1 Million. Members are also involved in making
decisions for the group issues or activities during their regular meeting that they hold twice per month.
From the assessment findings, all the assessed SBOs are rated as falling in the first growth stage. In terms of
performance, Kabunge group has the highest average rating across all the performance areas at 0.33, followed
closely by Gatundu agribusiness cooperative at 0.32, Zuri Blooms at 0.08 and Kariko at 0.02 in that order.
3.7 KITUI COUNTY
Predominant horticulture crops grown in Kitui County include mangoes, passion, avocado, oranges and kales.
Notable horticulture related programmes in the county were identified as those run by the county government,
KCEP-CRAL, and ASDSP. The four SBOs assessed in Kitui County included Kitui horticultural farmers’
cooperative society, Chuluni horticultural and processing enterprise, Mwingi west horticultural farmers’
cooperative society, and Nzamka horticultural farmers’ cooperative. The detailed profile of each of these SBOs
are presented in Annex 4.7.
Kitui Horticulture Farmers’ Cooperative Society was registered under the registrar of societies of Kenya on the
5th July 2012. It has a registered membership of 172 (80 F, 60M, 32Youth). The cooperative is located in Kitui
Central Sub-County with offices in Kitui Town in Kitui Township Ward. Its members are drawn from the Central
Sub- County which is favorably suited for Horticulture farming. It promotes growing and marketing of
Mangoes, Lemons, Oranges and passion fruits. It has a board of management comprising of 10 persons
(Management 7- 2F+5M, Supervisory 3- 1F+2M) overseeing the running of the society alongside the Manager.
The society raises funds through shareholding of KES 100,000 per Member, besides an Agro vet shop that
sells agro chemicals and other products. It has a Share capital of Ksh 5 Million and a turnover of 3Million. Its
financial records are updated and regularly audited books of accounts.
Chuluni horticultural processing enterprise was started in 2006 with a membership of 54 and currently only
27 are active. It has equal representation in leadership position with respect to men and women (no youth in
the executive committee). It is located in Chuluni market next to the CDF offices in Kitui east constituency,
Chuluni Ward. Due to low capacity, the cooperative processes only about 60% of the total produce from the
members as the rest is either sold to brokers in local markets or goes to waste. It has only one permanent
employee who is the production manager and the rest are casuals employed as need arises. The farmers bring
the fruits to the small factory because the enterprise does not have the capacity to collect all the produce from
the farms. The fruits processed are mangoes, Lemons, Oranges and passion fruits. The processing is done
manually but squeezing of juice from the fruits. Through attendance of shows, exchange visits, seminars, and
field days organized by various stakeholders both in Kitui County and other counties the executive committee
22
and manager have acquired some experience to support them in running of the society. They use exhibition
shows and other forums to advertise their products.
Mwingi West Horticulture Farmers’ Cooperative Society Limited began as a self-help group, later on turned
into a CBO before registering as a Cooperative on 5th July 2017. As a CBO they were producing Passion fruits
and recently after registration as a cooperative, plans to introduce mangoes, Cucumber, Pawpaw. The
members have a common collection point which was established during its operation as a CBOs. It currently
has 62 members (Men, Women and Youth) who are all practicing farming. Their membership fee is KES 500
(a once off fee). As a CBO, it used to collect from members and sell over 5000Kgs of passion fruit to the
exporter. Its key partners are the County Government (Ministry of agriculture), Rise Kenya (Which buys
mangoes from farmers), Green Life (Which trains farmers on pest control).
Nzamka horticultural farmers’ cooperative limited acronyms of Nzambani and Katulani horticultural
cooperative LTD serves members of Nzambani and Katulani Wards in Kitui East and Kitui Central Sub-Counties
respectively. It has 199 members (169 W, 30 M) and partners with agriculture-based institutions to actualize
its vision. The Cooperative needs to put in place some adjustments in the running of day to day affairs (e.g.,
Employ a qualified Manager, procure a cold storage facility, develop a strong Human resource and Information
management systems) to start to realize profits and progressive development.
Kitui Nzamka registered the highest average rating among the four CBOs assessed across all performance
areas with a rating of 0.42. This is mostly due to its high performance in supply, processing and marketing
compared to others. It is followed by Chuluni cooperative society with an average score across all performance
areas of 0.35. This is mainly due to its high performance on operational and management capacity areas.
Mwingi west (0.1) and Kitui (0.03) horticultural cooperative societies have the least scores mostly due to poor
performance in leadership, management, adaptive, supply, processing and marketing capacity.
3.8 LAIKIPIA COUNTY
The four assessed SBOs in Laikipia included Kariunga Jikaze farmer group; Tharaka self-help group; Umande
farmers’ cooperative society; and Kilimo Hifadhi SACCO. The detailed profiles of the assessed Laikipia SBOs
are presented in Annex 4.8.
Kariunga Jikaze cooperative society has a membership of 42 who produce French beans in a total of 30.45ha
for joint marketing. Other crops grown by members and sold individually include tomatoes, cabbage, kales,
butternuts and green pepper. Kariunga Jikaze has an active staff recruitment system where they elect leaders
and board members in the general meetings, then mandate the board to competitively advertise and hire
technical staff like the one they currently have. The group has secured land and constructed own spacious
premises currently used as a store but anticipating moving their office once they tap the grid power. They also
have structured planting programs that see them consistently supply produce throughout the year. The group
need skills for resource mobilization, and assistance to develop strategic plan and goals alongside trainings on
financial reporting systems. They mostly produce during wet seasons since most members have not installed
effective water harvesting and irrigation systems that could help maintain production levels in dry seasons.
Thakara Self Help Group is made up of farmers cultivating French beans for bulk marketing. Based in Ngare
Ngiro in Thigithi Ward of Laikipia Central Sub-County, the group was formed in 2017 and registered in February
2018. Its leadership is composed of elected members from both gender and the youth are well represented.
The membership of the group has been on the increase over the last few months from 27 members to 40
members. Production reports are reviewed regularly, and members are visited by a technical officer from Mara
farming (a strategic partner to offer extension services). The group members meet regularly on a monthly
23
basis. The group members recently agreed to deduct KES 5 from every kilogram sold in order to start paying
for their Share capital. The group intends to open a chemical input store then purchase land for their own
offices, collection and grading shade. Mara farming buys all the produce from this group for export. Despite
not owning a computer, production, financial and sales records are well kept and some book keeping training
is offered to the board officials from Mara farming. The French beans are sold at KES 65 per kilo while it costs
the farmer KES 40 to produce a kilo of the beans. This group produces 4 tons of French beans every week.
Umande farmers’ cooperative society is based in Umande Ward in Laikipia East Sub-County. The group was
formed in 2016 and registered in September 2016 with membership of 80 then. Currently, it has 188 members
and 154 are active (24 males, 121women, 9 youth). It is composed of farmers who keep dairy animals and
also produce potatoes. It was initially formed to help farmers to market potatoes but due to unreliable supply
of potato seeds the members agreed to diversify into milk bulking and selling. Nowadays the organizations’
core activity revolves around milk buying and selling milk. The board members of the organization are elected
and iit’s made up of both gender. These officials are the ones who carry out the management of the cooperative
affairs. The board members have to show competence before taking up their respective offices. The chairman
supervises the other board members. The group membership is mostly made up of women who account for
nearly 75% of all the members. The group members meet on a monthly basis with almost all members in
attendance. The board sends out SMS to members to remind them of the meetings. Share capital is not fully
paid up. The board runs the cooperatives activities with cash from the milk selling venture. Financial,
production and sales records are well documented but in hard copy. There are no computers in this group and
no HR policy. The production of potatoes varies between 20 tons at peak and 10 tons in low season. The low
production has been attributed to the lack of seed material. The potatoes are produces at a cost of KES 12
per kilo and sold at KES 17 per kilo.
Kilimo Hifadhi is located in DO’s compound, Mairo Nane, Umande Ward, and was registered in June 2017 even
though it was already operational by 10th March in that year. It has 67 members and 44 are active (24 males
and 20 female). It was founded as a SACCO which brought together the members of farmer groups (clusters)
which were engaging in conservation Agriculture. Since each of these 4 clusters had different agenda and
interest with a separate leadership team, the SACCO has had an uphill task in commanding common goals to
the extent that one of the clusters has dropped out. The remaining however have consolidated their interests
under the leadership of the executive with the chairman who is also a trainer of farmers (ToF) in conservation
Agriculture. In so doing, they have majored on share contributions since its inception and recently (October
2018) started offering loans to members based on their shares. Though not well documented and only ridden
by the consistent efforts of the executive, the members of Kilimo Hifadhi grow onions which they sell
collectively as a group. This they say has given them a higher bonding and stronger bargaining power for
market. They however had challenges with the inconsistent market since they sell to varied individual buyers.
Most of the farmers have not exploited their full production potential as they rely on manual production
methods. There are several own initiatives within the group for development and strength. The group already
partners with the county government for resource mobilization, Agrimek for mechanized farming and also
offering low interest loans to members for capital. They however need support to develop a working strategic
plan, document mission and action plans and also sensitize members on the need for their voluntary
commitment and involvement towards cooperative growth. All said, Kilimo Hifadhi being a young group, has
great potential for improvement.
24
Laikipia Umande recorded the highest rating score of 0.4 among the SBOs assessed followed by Laikipia Kilimo
with 0.38. This somewhat higher rating is due to higher score in leadership, adaptive and operational capacity.
Kilimo’s rating is boosted by better adaptive, supply, processing and marketing capacity. Laikipia Thakara and
Kariunga have an overall rating of respectively 0.26 and 0.05. A number of cross cutting issues were identified;
The organizations have some expression of the reason for their existence, but this lacks clarity. An overarching
strategy exists but it’s not clearly linked to the mission and lacks coherence. The board members are elected
to their respective positions by the members during and AGM. The board is usually composed of all gender
groups the membership has a limited diversity in fields of expertise and practice. The roles of the board are
clear and function according to the by-laws, review budgets and carry out daily management of the
organization’s activities. The board members monitor each other with overall supervision from the chairman.
Meeting are held regularly, and these are usually well attended.
There is a limited ability to develop a strategic plan. There is partial measurement and tracking of progress.
The organization collects some data on program activities and outputs and there is some effort to measure
outcomes. The organizations have some binding partnerships with for-profit firms and these relationships are
anchored in long –term, mutually beneficial collaboration. The partners offer marketing, input provision and
payment processing services.
The board members take on the roles of the staff and they do have prior experience in for-profit businesses.
There is limited budgeting because of poor internal resource mobilization. Share capital and annual
subscription has not been fully paid up. The organizations have come up with different strategies to ensure
the subscriptions are paid up with varying degree of success. There is ability to develop high-level operational
plans and procedure via external assistance. These plans are used to guide operations. There exist transparent
and structured lines for decision making. Information systems exist in a few areas for capturing membership,
by-laws, minutes but these are not fully comprehensive. There is no HR plan and no employment contracts.
Casual laborers are sometimes used for specific tasks.
All staff positions are filled and there is low turnover. Most of the board members double up as the staff. There
is a communications plan in place and the key messages are defined. Communications to members is generally
consistent and coordinated. The reporting system is manual and there are no computers in these
organizations. The buildings are small and inadequate and in most cases the meetings are held out in the
open or under tents. These organizations are legally registered and have certificates and other documents as
proof.
There is a link to external extension officer usually from the partner firm but there are opportunities for
improvement. Partners supply inputs like seeds and some chemicals and also provide assistance in production,
management and conservation. Umande Cooperative have a high demand for seeds which is not being met
by their current partner NHC (New Holland Chips). All members usually have an average of 1 acre of land
under the specific horticultural crop. More than 75% of the farmers’ practice some form of farm mechanization
either ploughing or use of gasoline water pumps for irrigation. Most farmers receive on farm training on
produce hygiene and handling. There is no value addition done by these organizations and none have cold
storage facilities.
There is low percentage of rejection at the collection centers because of training on hygiene and handling. The
produce is profitable with production cost of KES 12 and KES 17 selling price for potatoes and production cost
of KES 40 and selling price of KES 65 for French beans. French beans are sold weekly with the total volume
being 4 tons. Potatoes are sold monthly with the average tonnage being 15 tons. No produce remains with
25
the farmers. Currently Thakara SHG has a debt of KES 80,000 for French bean seeds from Mara farming while
this firm owes Thakara KES 600,000 for unpaid produce. Umande farmers has no assets and payment is
effected immediately after delivery with the help of AgriWallet; a partner firm that offers quick payment and
savings services plus loans for input at specific store using a check-off mode of payment.
3.9 MACHAKOS COUNTY
The four assessed SBOs in Machakos included Kaani fruit growers’ cooperative society; Machakos mango value
chain farmers’ cooperative society; Masii farmers’ cooperative society; and Kasinga Mung’ala farmers’
association. The detailed profiles of the assessed Machakos SBOs are presented in Annex 4.8.
The Kaani fruit growers’ cooperative is situated near Machakos town. It was registered in 2013 and currently
has a membership of 130 who are all active (by gender –male-32, women-98, youth). The members own
15,000 mango trees and membership is free.
Machakos mango value chain association is an umbrella body comprising of 25-member groups. It spearheads
mango value chain in the county. It was initiated by Agricultural Sector Development support programme in
2013. Its major objective is to offer services to member groups both technical and linking them to other
stakeholders in the value chain. Each member group operates on its own. Some of their services include
training member groups on nursery management and orchard establishment, crop protection and market
linkage. The association is in the process of constructing a central office where they will be operating from.
They are planning to employ staff to manage the association activities. They have the numbers and are well
represented across the county. They have a strong link with ASDSP programme and the county government
of Machakos.
Masii cooperative was registered in 2016 with a membership of 115. The membership still remains the same
and all are active (by gender –male-80, women-35, youth). The Masii farmers’ cooperative is vibrant with
high potential of attracting more members in future. They own an agro vet that can be used as an avenue to
stock recommended pesticides. The chairman retired from the Ministry of agriculture in 2016 and is well skilled
with mango agronomic skills. The management is gender balanced with 50% males and 50% females. They
have a strong constitution that could propel the cooperative to higher heights in future. The cooperative has
simple cold store to preserve their produce.
Kasinga Mung’ala Farmers Association is composed of retirees who have engaged in horticultural production.
Fuerte and Hass avocado is the main horticulture grown by the group. They grow the avocado at individual
level and sell through brokers who take the produce to exporting companies. The association members are
located in a fertile avocado zone with a high potential of increasing production and productivity. The board of
directors is experienced in agricultural activities. The group has a greenhouse that is used to grow tomatoes
though water is a challenge during the dry spell.
Kasinga Mung’ala recorded the highest rating score of 0.65 among the assessed SCOs in Machakos followed
by Kaani fruit with 0.41. This somewhat higher rating is due to higher score in management, supply,
processing, marketing, adaptive and leadership compared to the rest of the assessed organizations. Kaani’s
rating is mainly boosted by better supply, processing and marketing capacity compared to the others.
Machakos mango value chain association and Masii horticulture farmers’ cooperative have an overall rating of
respectively 0.24 and 0.11.
26
3.10 MAKUENI COUNTY
The four assessed SBOs in Makueni included Kwa Kyai Rural SACCO limited; Kithoni farmers’ self-help group;
Makueni county fruit processors; and Makiyika mango growers and processors. The detailed profiles of the
assessed Makueni SBOs are presented in Annex 4.10.
Kwa Kyai Rural SACCO Ltd SBO located in Kikumbulyu south Ward, Kibwezi west Sub County, was registered
in 2002 with a membership of 250 (current active members stand at 50). During peak period it produce over
15 tons per week (assorted enterprise Tomatoes, Mangoes, Ravaya, Capsicum, Okra, Brinjals, Watermelon,
Baby corn, Kales, Green Maize and Spinach) and during low season, produces 4tons per week. Its dried
Tomatoes and Mangoes exported to Netherlands while most fresh produce sold to the local market in the
county and some parts of the country. The members in the scheme have a reliable source of water which can
be utilized to diversify the enterprises. The irrigation scheme is old enough and has a well linked market
system including the export market.
Kithoni Farmers Self Help Group located in Kikumini/Muvau Ward, Makueni Sub County, and Makueni County
was registered in 2012. Its current active membership stands at 74 (by gender, male-33, women-41, youth-
15). The group has a lot of potential because it has a big catchment, the area is a hub for horticultural crops
especially mangoes and citrus. The group needs a lot of support in getting a manager and putting up the
management structures in place. It can be a good source of employment to the youth in the area. The financial
base of the group is also poor and needs support.
Makueni County Fruit Processors was registered in 2008 and operates in Wote/Nziu Ward, Makueni Sub
County. It started in 2008 as a self-help group with 43 members but registered in 2010 as Makueni county
fruit processors. During peak period it handles over 500 tons per month and 2 tons in low season. The produce
targets both the export market, and the local market which include Kalamba fruit processors and other parts
of the country.
Makiyika Mango growers and processors was registered in 2006 with 158 members. Currently it has 80
members out of which 66 are active (by gender –male-44, women-22, 1-youth). Despite having a lot of
potential including diversification from mango production, the CBO lacks strong structure, permanent
operation base.
Makiyika mango growers and processors recorded the highest rating score of 0.72 followed by Kithoni farmers
with 0.21. This somewhat higher rating is due to slightly better of score in leadership, adaptive, management
operational, and supply, processing and marketing capacity compared to the other assessed SBOs. Kithoni
farmers rating was mainly boosted by better management capacity. Kya Kyai and Makueni county fruit
processors had an overall rating of respectively 0.09 and 0.05.
3.11 MERU COUNTY
The four assessed SBOs in Meru included Meru county banana cooperative society; Meru friends SACCO; Meru
potato processing cooperative; and Timau potato grower’s farmer cooperative society. The detailed profiles of
the assessed SBOs are presented in Annex 4.11Meru county banana cooperative society comprises of 22
banana groups spread in different sub counties countywide and was registered in 2014. At registration, it had
4000 members distributed on 50:50 ratio by gender and currently, only 670 members are active.
The produce supply base is about 50ha per group (Estimated; 1,100Ha for the cooperative) and the production
is almost continuous throughout the year. One of the main aims of formation of the cooperative was to start
value addition on banana products such as banana wine, flour, and crisps among others. The production of
wine was tried on manual basis and found to be viable. However, it’s upon completion of the factory that real
27
operations /production is expected to commence. The board members as seen have broad vision and forward
looking. The construction of the factory site is an indicator of their intentions. Currently individual groups are
doing a good job in marketing of their produce but quite some healthy competition also exists on the ground
in form of private companies buying bananas from farmers directly. The competitor (Twiga) buys and does
some ripening for various outlets within and outside the county. However, cooperative have a niche for
themselves since they are the only ones to venture into value addition in the region.
Meru friends SACCO was registered in January 2016 and became operational in July 2017. It has 239 members
(174 males and 65 female) of which 50 members were below 35 years (youth). Currently, 120 members are
active. The SACCO came into being after a World Bank study on malnutrition levels in the country identified
Igembe North, South and Tigania to be mostly affected. To address the situation, a project for the production
of orange fleshed sweet potatoes was initiated. This gave birth to the Society to own the value addition plant
on-behalf of the community to cater for the excess potatoes. The area/region capacity to supply the product
is wide and the production potential is enormous. Standing acreage under the crop is 35 acres capable of
giving 35Tonnes/acre. The society has a production plant installed on a rented premise and the plant capacity
is 2500 loaves of bread and 500 packets of doughnuts per day. The Food technologist has been able to identify
11value addition products out of which 2 are under production currently. There are plans to introduce 5 other
value addition products (scones, burns, queen cakes, salted crisps and long burns) by November 2018 and
production of packaging material has started. Their biggest challenge has been how to transport the products
to the outlets in the region and recently they acquired a tuk-tuk to address the distribution problem. The
society has employed skilled staff with technical expertise on production and vacant positions of Manager and
tuk-tuk driver has been advertised for the recruitment. All the above is an indication of brighter future for the
forward-looking farmers.
Meru potato processing cooperative limited was formed in 2013 and operates from Abothuguchi Ward, Imenti
Sub County. The membership has remined 421 (305 males and 116 female) since registration and 300 farmers
are active. The management has a clear goal with a common purpose and a strategy to achieve and run the
cooperative effectively and make the community wealthy. Roles are clearly specified and discharged across
the cooperatives, have guiding by-laws with duties and responsibilities of leaders/board members and
members which brings sanity and discipline in the organization. AGMs held regularly- annual general meetings
for all member are held twice a year to discuss their progress. For planning and implementation purposes BOM
meets quarterly. They have shared beliefs and values, shared common social, cultural and economic goal
within the organization, having common purpose to be the leading cooperative in producing enough food in
the county and making profits and creating more wealth.
They have a well-developed strategic plan to achieve in two years to settle the loan owned by the cooperative,
to have permanent premises and employ staff to implement their mission and vision. They strong network of
partners e.g. potato growers Africa, Syngenta, Twiga foods, real IPM organic, Equity Banks and Meru County
government. These networking has enabled successful formation and transformation of the cooperative and
capacitating farmers/members with skills and helping them to operate, build trust with partners to ease the
work by pulling together the resources and identify potential sustainable markets. Performance recorded are
periodically reviewed, the cooperative is able to track the progress through writing of minutes for monitoring
purposes and doing follow up.
Annual financial audited reports are presented to members by the county auditor who does financial auditing
every year for the cooperative to comply and also help the management to plan. Financial access to banks
28
and Sacco’s has created good relationship with banks that provide financial assistance, in in the form of loans
and other financial literature.
The cooperative has a strong asset base that can be used as guarantees against debts and loans helping in
pulling resource for growth and investments. The cooperative is legally registered with certificate. Farmers
are adopting mechanized land preparation, own more than one-acre demonstrations. Members have
accumulated share through registration fee and buy shares which is not less than KES 1000 each part from
assets which could partly be used as security.
Timau potato grower’s farmers’ cooperative society was formed in 2018 and is based in Buuri Sub County,
Timau Ward, Timau town. Timau potatoes grower’s cooperative has huge potential in the region for
agribusiness. The union is legally registered with an objective of sourcing certified seeds at fair price and
selling collectively at good prices and creating more wealth. The cooperative has membership of 1300, but
active members are only 300 who have accumulated shares worth KES 100,000 and assets after registration
of the union. The interim board of management oversees, plans and executes financial operations and
management. The constitution has specified clear roles for their leaders who organize annual general meeting
to members. They have created networks with other partners like Techno serve, Bayer, Syngenta, Twiga foods
which offer technical support on farming and market to the members to help them achieve full operational
capacity of a cooperative. Over 20% farmers have mechanized their farm and on farm trainings are done by
partners. Members have more than 300 acres for production, and farmers sell produce locally to brokers since
the cooperative is on formative stage relying on county government as pivot partner/shareholder. Most
decisions are made through county directives.
Timau potato grower’s farmers’ cooperative society recorded the highest rating score of 0.46 followed by Meru
potato processing cooperative limited with 0.41. This somewhat higher rating is due to higher score in adaptive
and management capacity compared to the rest of the assessed organizations. Meru potato processing
cooperative’s rating is mainly boosted by better supply, processing and marketing capacity compared to the
others. Meru county banana cooperative society and Meru friend’s SACCO had an overall rating of respectively
0.24 and 0.05.
3.12 NAKURU COUNTY
Nakuru county government is promoting horticulture production by supporting some of the horticultural value
chains particularly avocado and macadamia by purchasing and distributing seedlings. Together with other
stakeholders and partners, the county developed potato strategy and conducts training and demonstrations
on clean seed production. Other partners supporting the promotion of horticulture in the county with inputs
and input credits services, produce processing and capacity development on business skills includes Farm to
Market Alliance, Yala, Robo Bank, Syngenta, Sereni, SNV and most recently NARIG targeting potatoes.
The four assessed SBOs in Nakuru included Mau Narok rural farmers SACCO society Limited; New Molo farmers
SACCO society limited; Star Lite Cooperative society; and Subukia avocado farmers’ cooperative society. The
detailed profiles of the assessed Laikipia SBOs are presented in Annex 4.12.
Mau Narok Rural Farmers SACCO Society LTD has been in existence since 2012 when it was registered with
15 members. Over a period of five years, membership increased to 400 and 300 are active. It was initially
started with an objective of providing members with farming credit but has evolved over time and started
engaging its members with contract farming. It has employed a manager on permanent basis who oversees
the daily operation of the SACCO. The manager is assisted in decision making by various sub- committee
members who are mandated by the SACCO constitution to oversee activities in their dockets e.g. marketing.
29
The manager stores the data in an information database in the Sacco’s computer. The SACCO has diversified
into dairy production and has employed staff in milk collection. The SACCO employs an agronomist during
potato crop growth and development phase that ensures that the contract terms are abided to. The SACCO
has previously been engaged in contract farming for potato processing with Moori Flowers Company Limited
in Kiambu, but the variety did not perform well in the area. It has also been engaged with KDF factory in Gilgil
to produce potato for processing. The SACCO has huge potential to transform farmer’s lives if capacity built
in construction of potato cold storage, postharvest handling and potato mechanization, and various aspects of
SACCO management including marketing and financial management.
Despite the fact that NEW MOLO FARMERS SACCO Society LTD has been in existence since 2013, its growth
seems to be stagnated. At registration, it had 55 members which increased to 200 and 120 are currently
active. The Sacco was assisted by an NGO to construct a storage facility which was not placed strategically in
the farming areas rendering the store to be idle. The group members are scattered across Molo and Elburgon
areas which makes common marketing a challenge due to involved cost of transportation. Each member farms
individually on their own farms. The group does not have a manager, but the chairman takes the role at the
moment. Various staffing levels remain vacant with group members voluntarily holding those positions. There
is need to capacity build the cooperative at the various capacity areas in order to make it productive. Aspects
of group dynamics, marketing and proper record keeping would be necessary training for the group.
Star lite Cooperative Society Ltd is located in Kuresoi Sub County and was registered in 2008. Currently, the
membership stands at 180 potato growers and the ratio of male: female members is at 50:50. It’s important
to note that the cooperatives is serving farmers not registered as well and therefore work with about 500
farmers in total. Daily production turnover is 17 tons at peak period and 8 tons in low seasons, all of which is
sold to brokers. Initially the cooperative was involved in production of potato seed (clean seed) for processing.
They faced challenges of seasonality since the activity is rainfed and low productivity. Marketing as a
cooperative has been declining over the years due challenge of virgin land for clean seed production and
rotational programmes challenges. The cooperative members could be trained on various capacity areas
including enterprise selection and marketing. There is need for an aggregation center with cooling facility or
processing facility for value addition. The group can be trained on financial management and networking to
bring on board stakeholders who can offer support in infrastructures and training activities.
Subukia Avocado Farmers’ Cooperative Society LTD is young and has not made major strides as a cooperative.
It was registered in 2017 and has 67 members. It is involved in production of avocado seedlings and has been
certified by HCD and KEPHIS. The enterprise in question takes almost one year from seed to marketing hence
initial slow growth of the SACCO. Currently, the group has about 3000 seedlings which are not yet grafted.
The group has not employed a permanent manager, but the chairman holds the position for the time being.
The group is in formative stage and requires capacity building in all capacity areas. There are no audited
reports or records an indicator that the cooperative may collapse over time due to various capacity gaps.
New Molo farmers’ cooperative and Subukia avocado farmers’ cooperative respectively recorded the highest
rating score of 0.38. This somewhat higher rating compared to the remaining two was due to higher score in
adaptive, management capacity, and supply, processing and marketing capacity. Star Lite cooperative and
Mau Narok farmers’ cooperative had overall ratings of respectively 0.2 and 0.17.
3.13 NYANDARUA COUNTY
Horticultural farming in Nyandarua County is largely embraced by the farmers due to the high returns from
the local and export markets. Existing flower farms in the county have proved to be a major source of
30
employment for the large labour force. Due to the high capital requirements involved, local individuals and
groups of farmers are supported to start horticultural ventures. Horticultural crops grown in the County include
Irish potatoes, carrots, vegetables and fruits. Vegetables include such crops as kales, onions, cabbages, leeks,
and capsicum. The County is one of the top producers of vegetables in the country as per the 2012 Ministry
of Agriculture records.
The four assessed SBOs in Nyandarua included Mirangine green silver farmers’ cooperative society; Soko Mpya
farmers’ cooperative society; Oleriondo horticultural roadside market self hep group; and Ol-Arwagwai
farmers’ cooperative society. The detailed profiles of the assessed Laikipia SBOs are presented in Annex 4.13.
Mirangine green silver farmers’ cooperative society is located in Olkalau Sub-County and was registered in
2016 and became operational in 2017 with 37 members. This has increased to132 (84 male and 42 female)
all of them active. The members are involved in potato production with a turnover of 100 tons within the
four months of peak season and 48.56 tons within another four months of low season. All the produce are
sold to Sereni Fries Ltd Company. Though the Mirangine green silver farmers’ cooperative society has been
in existence for quite a short time, its financial performance started at a bad footing, according to the available
records. This could be attributed to low productivity. For instance, the total yield of potato, which was the
main enterprise in 2017 Long Rain Cropping Season, was 100Tons against an estimated acreage of 42 acres.
This translated to about 6Tons per hectare, against a standard performance of 16-20 Tons per hectare. The
higher than normal rains in the following year of same season i.e. April-July Rains aggravated the problem;
leading the cooperative to incur a loss of KES 870,220 (Refer to a report attached on the questionnaire).
Nonetheless, the coops leadership is focused, and could take the group to a higher level if issues on enterprise
productivity are addressed.
Soko Mpya farmers’ cooperative society is located in Kinangop sub county and started as a self-help group in
1999 before it was registered as a cooperative in 2016 with 86 members (50 male and 36 female). It has
current membership of 75 farmers and 50 are active. It is therefore still at its formative stage as it yet to
start operating as a cooperative and yet to make use of a marketing structure which is in their possession.
Subsequently there is no paid staff for day to day operations. The county government has allocated 1.3M for
rehabilitation/maintenance and to jumpstart the operations by assisting the members to start buying
horticultural produce. However, member mobilization is rather low, and this could be attributed to inadequate
capacity in leadership and governance.
Oleriondo Horticultural Roadside Market Self Held Group was registered by the department of culture and
social services in 2011 with initial membership of 72 farmers producing horticulture and selling by the roadside
as individuals. It is located in Olkalou sub county in Kaibaga Ward and currently have 46 members and only
30 (12 males and 18 females) are active. Though the group is in possession of quite a sizeable marketing
structure which is under the County Government, there is minimal use of the facility. Only a few members
make occasional use of a few stalls of the facility by storing the produce overnight and removing it in the
morning to display it by roadside for sale. The group has no staff for the day to day running. The only activity
that binds the group members is table banking.
Ol-Arwagwi Farmers’ Cooperative Society is an old cooperative located in Kinangop Sub-County and was
registered in 1964 with members doing dairy and horticulture even though the cooperative is currently in
existence for dairy production. It has current membership of 367 farmers (male 164 and female 203). It’s can
therefore be said that as a horticulture cooperative, Ol-Arwagwai is still in its formative stages and just like
the case of Oleriondo Horticultural Roadside Market Self Held Group, this cooperative is yet make use of a
31
marketing structure under its possession. Members are involved in small scale horticultural production but sell
on individual basis.
Oleriondo horticultural roadside market self-help recorded the highest rating score of 0.76 followed by
Mirangine with 0.41. This somewhat higher rating is due to higher score in adaptive, management and
leadership capacity compared to the rest of the assessed organizations. Mirangine cooperative’s rating is
mainly boosted by better operational and management capacity. Ol-Arwagwai and Soko Mpya had an overall
rating of respectively 0.35 and 0.26.
These horticultural cooperatives are either at formative or storming stage. Mirangine silver green cooperative
evolved from a self-help group. The market for potatoes especially Makes and Jelly varieties is available, and
demand is increasing. The cooperative has contractual agreement with Sereni Fries Ltd Company. The
cooperative has a potential of becoming a vibrant institution although the others are still having issues.
3.14 NYERI COUNTY
Nyeri county is producing arrange of horticultural crops including onions, cabbages, tomatoes, other
vegetables and potatoes. In an effort to diversify production, fruits including avocado is being promoted by
county government. The County has already started supplying farmers with 2-3 avocado seedlings of Hassi
Variety. This is a project that will be running every financial year. Irish potatoes do well in Kieni regions and
the County has plans of exporting surplus production. Horticultural production is largely at individual farmer
level except a few organized farmers groups and one cooperative growing Irish potato (Sebeke horticulture
cooperatives).
The study assessed three farmers’ self-help groups and one cooperative in the county; 1) Sebeke Horticulture
cooperatives drawing its members from Kieni East and West, 2) Wamwaki Horticulture self-help group, 3)
Saflo Horticulture self-help group, and 4) Amuka Twende self-help group.
SEBEKE HORTICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE is newly formed and recently registered and launch in May 2018. The
society was formed by mobilizing 15 Irish potatoes commercial villages drawn from Kieni east and West
sub-counties and therefore is at a formative stage. The current membership is 1500 (450M, 900F, 150 youth),
producing 7500 tons per season during peak period and 3500 tons in low season. The leadership have vision
and mission communicated to members through meeting but not written. The co-operative has constitution
guiding on roles and responsibility. The co-operative adaptive capacity is through strong partnership with
county government, project coordinators of the projects being implemented by County funded and by National
government e.g. ASDSP and Climate Smart Agriculture. The co-operative has limited operation since
production is through the commercial villages. The commercial villages have two cold stores for potatoes with
a capacity of 40 tons build in partnership with International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC). The
cooperative is at formative stage and has no offices but plan to open them in the two sub-counties.
The co-operative has high potential to impact on commercialized potato production. It requires resource
mobilization to build infrastructure –store, offices, and grading and package facilities. The co-operative
requires financial management training for its growth and profitable operations.
Wamwaki Horticulture Self-Help Group is located in Mathira West Sub-County and has been in operational
since 2007 with 42 registered members initially. Currently, it has 36 active members (17 male, 12 women,
and 7 youth) growing export crops marketed though Flamingo Company Limited. The main crops grown include
French beans and snow peas. Production during peak period is at 15 tons per season and 10 tons in low
season, all of which is sold to Flamingo Company Limited. It has annual turn-over is 1.65 million.
32
The group has strong leadership with organization structure documented and placed in the grading shed for
ease of access to members. The leaders have clear vision, mission and plan but not documented. They have
a constitution that guides their roles, responsibilities and values of members. The consequences of breaching
the values and rules are clear. The term in office of official is set and adhered to. The members are involved
in decision making during special and annual general meetings. The group is in partnership with Flamingo
Company Limited and relevant government departments which supports them to achieve their vision. The
group operation is clear in terms of production, financial and marketing through partnership with exporter’s
technical assistant and county extension staff technical support. The official prepares a budget and plan which
guides them on operation and maintenance. The financial transactions are quite transparent to members with
document well maintained and open to members. The KES 5 commission per kg produced and sold is deducted
to meet group recurrent expenditure – salary and maintenance. They have a grading shed with charcoal cooler
and input store. The group has no office hence documents are kept by officials and is audited annually.
The level of production and financial performance is good despite limitations on irrigation water and storage
capacity of the produce hindering expansion of operations. The group has potential if supported with
improvement of market infrastructure, capacity building, and credit facility to finance and expand. This would
have a big impact in improving the livelihood of members and the community at large.
SAFLO HORTICULTURE SELF HELP GROUP is located in Mathira West Sub-County and has been in operation
since 2005. Currently it has membership of 40 of which 20 (8 male, 7 women, and 5 youth) are the most
active and producing French beans and snow peas. During peak and low production periods, members are
producing 12 and 6 tons per season respectively, all of which are sold to Flamingo Company Limited.
The group has clear vision, mission and plan but not documented. The group has a constitution that guides
their roles, responsibilities and values for all members. The group members are involved in decision making
during special general meeting and annual general meeting. The group is in partnership with Flamingo
Company Limited and government departments and projects which support them to achieve their vision. One
of the visions is to expand their business and raise profitability. Flamingo currently buy produce under contract
and also provide technical support through their field technical assistants. Department of agriculture also
support the group in extension service. It has weak financial status and mobilize resource on need basis for
infrastructure maintenance and recurrent expenditure e.g. Salary of the produce grader. The group members
finance their operation individually and group management team is mainly coordinating production and
marketing of the produce.
The group level of production is fairly good as it experiences minimal produce losses during grading and
rejection by the Exporter. The group limitations to increase productivity and profitability are inadequate
irrigation water, storage capacity of the produce and inability to mobilize resources to finance and expand
operation. The group has potential if supported with improvement of market infrastructure, capacity building,
and credit facility to finance and expand their operation that will have big impact in improving the livelihood
of members and community in general.
AMUKA TWENDE SELF HELP GROUP is located in Kieni West Sub-County and was started in 2004 with 21
registered members then and currently have 33 active persons (14 male, 11 women, and 8 youth). Onion is
the main horticulture produced and marketed by the group. During peak production, members are producing
240 tons and 120 tons in low season. All the produce is sold in the local market.
The group has strong well-established leadership structure with women and youth included. The group has a
written constitution with rules and consequences if violated. The leaders have a have clear vision, mission
33
and goals but not written. The roles and responsibility of the official is clear, and the group members are
involved in decision making during special and annual general meetings. From own resources, the group is
able to procure input for its members. Similarly, through partnership, the group has been able to mobilize
financial resources to implement group activities. The group also works closely with both public and private
extension provider to build capacity. The county government supported group in construction of onion store.
The group has management in place that is able to budget, mobilize resource, plan production and marketing
although not strong enough for higher level of business. The group has no contract with buyer but have
identified buyers and markets. The group transactions are documented and accessible to members for
scrutiny. The group is annually audited.
The group level of production and financial performance is fairly good with limitation being irrigation water
and storage capacity of the produce. The group if supported with improvement of market infrastructure,
capacity building, and credit facility to finance and expand their operation can have a big impact in improving
the livelihood of members. According to evaluation results, all the four business are in first stage of growth
with Sebeke cooperatives score rating of 0.16, Amuka Twende at 0.11, and Saflo and Wamwaki at 0.07.
Detailed assessment results of each SBOs is in Annex 4.14.
3.15 TRANSZOIA COUNTY
The County has 25 active coffee and 22 dairy cooperatives, plus 26 SACOOS according to the records at the
County Cooperative department. These cooperatives are involved in many other activities apart from what
they are legally registered for. Only one horticultural cooperative was registered in Charanganyi which was
growing French Beans for export market but diversified into dairy and cereals in 2016 due marketing
challenges. The County drafted a policy on horticulture cooperatives in 2014 which has not been operational
to date.
Transzoia, although mainly a maize growing county, there are efforts to diversify into other crops due to
challenges in maize marketing. The government has a programme on crop diversification targeting
horticultural crops by encouraging farmers to diversify into Tissue culture bananas, Avocadoes, Macadamia,
Tomatoes, French Beans, Snow peas and Sugar snaps. The county programme on crop diversification into
horticulture is through support to farmers with greenhouse especially the youths and women. The government
buy Tissue culture banana planting materials from Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
which is established in the nurseries before distributing to farmer groups. Amiran is one of the partners in
horticulture promotion conducting demonstrations on greenhouse tomato and onion production and provide
seeds, fertilizers and crop protection chemicals for greenhouses supplied to the farmers through County
government funding. The county approach in diversification is through farmer groups; Self-help groups and
CBOs. Agriculture sector development support programme (ASDSP) and recently launched World Bank
projects (NARIG/KCSAP) are some of the partners supporting horticulture in the county.
The study assessed four horticultural organizations, three community-based organizations; Siuna Growers,
Kilongei and Nyasasaba, and one farmers Cooperative, Sitatu fresh in Charanganyi Sub-county. Detailed
assessment report for each SBOs is in Annex 4.15
Siuna Growers CBO is within Grassland location in Siuna Village, Mitisi Ward in Saboti Sub-county. It was
registered in April 2017 with 44 members and currently has 38 of whom 25 are the most active (M13, F13,
YM3, YF4). The main crop produced by the CBO is TC bananas of which up to 42 tons (840 bunches) are
produced monthly during the peak season and 21 tons (420 bunches) in low periods. All the produce is sold
at wholesale markets to local buyers, Schools, Kitale, Lodwar and Eldoret. The CBO has a share capital of KES
34
407,500, with annual turn-over of KES 350,000. Other activities include table banking, production of
avocadoes and TC bananas nursery for multiplication. The CBO has one mentor and not a permanent employee
and has 3 years strategic plan (2012-2013) (2016-2019).
KILONGEI CBO is located within Cheptilil Centre, Saboti Location, Saboti Ward in Saboti Sub-county. It was
registered as a CBO in 2009 with initial membership of 80 but currently have 62 active members (F27; M35).
The main crop produced is French Beans, Snow peas and Sugar snaps. The members are producing up to 200
tons per week of these crops during peak period and about 90 tons in low seasons. All the produce is sold to
VEGpro Company. Share capital and annual turn-over could not be established due to inaccessibility of the
documents during the field survey. The members are also producing maize and dairy and have 4 staff
employed on contract. The CBO has 20 years strategic plan. The CBO has wide membership and well
distributed across Ward. Membership is composed of youths, middle aged and elderly women and men. It has
strong leadership which appears to have potential of taking the CBO to another level if given relevant
assistance. It covers a large catchment area endowed with good soils and cool climate. The main challenge is
piped water systems in the region which broke down.
Nyasasaba CBO is located within Salama Centre, Kaibei Location, Matumbei Ward in Endebess Sub County
and was registered in 2005 with initial membership of 456. Currently, there are 28 affiliated groups totalizing
to 400 active members (M129, F120, YM98, YF88, disable 32). The CBO produces over 1500 crates of tomatoes
per week during the peak period and 500 in low seasons which is sold to designated markets in Kisumu,
Nairobi, Mombasa, Kitale and Eldoret. The CBO Share capital is about KES 0.9Million with annual turn-over of
about KES 18 Million. Members are also engaged in village saving and loaning (table banking). The CBO has
one worker on voluntary basis and has 5 years strategic plan (2017-2022).
Sitatu Fresh Farmers Co-Op Society Ltd is located in Cherangani Sub County and was registered in 2014 as a
farmers cooperatives producing and exporting French beans through Exporters. It has a wide membership
composed of youthful and elderly people. It initially has 326 registered members but currently only 100 active
members, (F 40, M 60). It has a vision to reach the entire Ward and beyond. The cooperatives switched to
dairy activities after it was swindled by partners buying company of its produce/proceeds thus disappointing
farmers. The coop. has large farmer base in Sitatunga ward. It has a small vehicle used for milk transportation.
The plan for 2018 was to engage in Avocado, soya beans and export crops production but no horticultural
crops. It has 4 employees on contract and has 25 years strategic plan (2014-2014).
According to evaluation results, all the four business are in first stage of growth with Siuna Growers score
rating of 0.23, followed closely by Sitatu fresh farmers co-op society Ltd at 0.2, Nyasasaba CBO at 0.17 and
Kilongei CBO at 0.11. Detailed assessment results of each SBOs are in Annex 4.15.
3.16 UASIN GISHU COUNTY
The County produce arrange of horticultural crops including French beans, Snow peas, Baby corn, Carrots,
Cabbages, Kales, Passion fruits, Tomatoes, Macadamia, Tissue culture bananas, Avocadoes and Irish potatoes.
Most of the successful Cooperatives in the county are doing dairy as the main value chain and horticulture
production is a minor activity and a form of diversification since dairy farmers are also growing horticultural
crops and cereals. Farmers are growing horticultural crops as groups especially in Burnt forest and Moiben
region. In Burnt forest, farmers groups are growing peas and carrots, and in Moiben, they grow Snow peas,
French beans and Baby corn. Some of the organized farmer groups are contracted by horticultural processing
and exporting companies, linking producers with the outside market. The County government is supporting
horticultural production by building storage facilities, purchasing and distributing avocadoes and macadamia
35
seedlings to individual farmers and groups. Through the support of European Union, the county government
proposed to construct a Wholesale market with storage facilities at Kimumu market at a cost of KES110 million
provided by EU. Considering county’s horticultural production potential, there would be need for more storage
facilities to be constructed to minimized wastage of produce. Until the end of the 2017, USAID KAVEs
supported horticultural farmers on capacity building and infrastructure development. ASDSP in its first phase
of 5 years supported three value chains in the county (not necessarily horticulture) and in the second devolved
phase of another five years will continue with developing value chain platforms mainly farmer groups. The
recently launched World Bank funded projects- NARIG and KCSAP is being implemented in some selected sub-
counties and Wards and horticulture production and marketing is one of the targeted value chains.
During the scoping phase of the study, County commissioner of cooperatives identified a number of registered
cooperatives from records and the current status of some of these cooperatives could not be ascertained
except the ones which were finally assessed with the assistance of County agricultural extension personnel.
These includes; 1) Mustard seed, a cooperative registered in 2015 with members growing French beans,
Onions and Other crops. They received a loan from county government and started savings and loans scheme
and opened an agrovet. 2) Kakisopche cooperative registered in 2015. 3) Kapnyangi lower horticulture
registered in 2018 and held their first meeting on 23/10/18. 4) Kasari farmers’ cooperative society, growing
avocadoes and macadamia. 5) A cooperative in Merikwet growing Passions fruits which is popular in Uganda
where most buyers travel from collect from farmers. 6) Kisopche cooperative is located in Kaptaget and the
first ten members are from that particular region. 7) Ainabkoi farmers’ cooperative growing potatoes but dairy
is there main value chain. 8) Materenyi farmers’ cooperative society growing macadamia nuts, although mainly
known for maize.
The study assessed four farmer organizations, two cooperatives and two farmer groups; 1) Kapteldon
Horticultural Farmers, 2) Kutsi Farmers CBO, 3) Kimoluet Farmers’ Co-operative Society Ltd, and 4) Mustard
Seed Farmers’ Cooperative Society. Detailed assessment report for each SBOs is presented in Annex 4.16.
Kapteldon is a registered farmer group since 2014 and is located in Kapseret Sub-county. At registration, it
had 30 members (18 F 12 M) which increased to 72 currently (35 F and 37 M). The group is producing passion
fruits of up to 2.5 tons per week (10 tons /month) with sales turn-over of about KES 5 million. Since payments
are channeled to individual farmer accounts, the group account does not have money and therefore no Share
capital. Members of the group are also involved in seedling production in the nursery, dairy and maize
production. The group has no employed staff and yet to develop a strategic plan.
Kapteldon farmers group has a great potential to produce huge volumes of passion fruits because the group
has a good balance of youth and women, but most farmers do not irrigate during dry season when prices are
very high. The group also needs to recruit more farmers to build a strong base. Passion fruit require a lot of
inputs and is usually affected by many diseases and pest. The good chemicals recommended by most buyers
are quite expensive. Lack of an established inputs store where members can access inputs at subsidized prices
affects the production and quality of the produce. The potential of the group is great especially if the farmers
could be supplied with water to enable them produce all-year-round which will also improve the quality and
the marketable volumes.
According to assessment results, Kaptedon farmers group has various challenges especially in leadership.
Management of cooperatives requires a good background in financial operations and management skills in
general. This is key especially if the cooperative is to invest members’ money and source for support from
external sources. Lack of experienced manager in this group has led to inadequate financial information
36
circulated to members. The produce is marketed as a group but not putting money in the group account has
also contributed to dormancy of group account. This is not favorable for the group especially when the group
wishes to access credit for members. The group officials perform all activities especially technical and
management which could be done by one or two qualified staff. The group has not computerized their systems,
yet they have a laptop and a printer. Produce delivery and sale to various buyers has not been documented.
The turnover per year for the group is high but this is not reflected in their accounts. This has made them not
to have a strong asset base. The group also lacks a grading and sorting shade which is done by the exporter
which reduces the profits that goes to members. After grading, produce that fails export quality standards
should be processed, but this is not possible due to lack of value addition facilities. Again, once the produce
is harvested and the buyers fail to collect deteriorates due to lack of cold storage facility.
Kutsi was registered as farmers CBO in 2015 and located within Kuinet/Kapsuwa Ward in Soy Sub-county. At
registration, it had 33 members which increased to 64 (30F 34M). Members are growing passion fruits and
producing up to 7500 Kgs per week in peak seasons and 4200Kgs in low seasons, most of which is sold in
Uganda and other buyers including Woni Exporters, Nelbark and Essential Seed Processors. The group has a
Share capital of KES 150,000 with annual turn-over close to KES 16 Million. Members are also engaged in
Avocado growing and dairy production. The group has one employed staff and has strategic plan in place.
KUTSI Farmers C.B.O has a great potential to grow because they have a good market potential and are offered
good prices for their produce. Their location is an advantage because they are very near town and accessibility
is good to most buyers. Furthermore, if they are to value add their passion fruit to ready-to drink-juice they
are next to a University which will offer a big market outlet for their product. The only problem the group
experiences is low volumes of production during the drier seasons. The group has borehole water drilled but
distribution to members has not been done. The group also has a piece of land and given equipment’s could
start processing juice especially for produce that does not meet the export market requirements.
According to assessment results, youth and women representations is high in the group which is important in
relations to the ability to put bigger area under production since the youth and women are more active in farm
production. The group has a good network with partners although none of the partnerships have been
formalized. They lack an experienced manager in cooperative management which has led to poor financial
reporting and circulation to members. This has also seen the group unable to keep deposits into group accounts
and hence unable to develop a good asset base. The group is near town and has access to powers but has not
purchased computers for information management. They have a wide membership base, but members cannot
access inputs cheaply given that the group has no input store, yet pesticides used in passion fruit production
are quite costly. The group also lacks cold store and testing facilities given that a lot of chemicals are used in
production which may lead to chemical residues in the produce. Grading and sorting is done at individual farm
level which result to different grades and this would have been sorted if they had a common sorting and
grading shed.
Kimoluet Farmers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd has been registered since July 2017 and is located in
Segero/Barsombe Ward in Soy Sub-county. The cooperative has 40 members (13F 27M) producing Tomatoes
of up to 65 tons per season which is sold to local traders. It has share capital of KES 590,000 with annual
turnover of KES 5 Million. Members are also involved in maize and dairy production. The cooperative has no
employed staff and yet to develop a strategic plan.
The cooperative has a great potential to produce huge volumes of tomatoes because all members are
accessible to water for irrigation apart from owning large tracks of land for cultivation. The use of portable
37
motorized pumps to deliver water directly to their farms increases cost of production as on average, the
smallest parcel of land requires at least 20 liters of petrol. This cost would be reduced substantially if an
irrigation scheme is established to serve the members. Alternatively, farmers would also reduce their costs of
production if they could pump water into tanks firsts and use drip system to irrigate instead of overhead which
increases disease incidences.
From the assessment results, there is need to include women and youth so that the society attracts more
members to join. Lack of implementation of the strategic plan slow down the development of the society. As
a society, there is need to employ qualified staff to handle various issues instead of leaving the board to handle
all issues including management and technical issues. The manager has experience having worked in other
societies but failure to prepare financial reports and circulating to members will discourage members who
normally expect transparency in how their monies are spent.
The cooperative has access to power but has not computerize their systems, yet they access credit for
members and cannot put all this necessary information in a system. Though the society is still young, they
need to focus to develop a plan of how to establish a good asset base. Tomato is a crop that has a lot of pests
and diseases and the recommended chemicals are quite expensive, yet the society does not have an input
store where members can access inputs at a subsidized rate. This results to high production cost for members
thus reducing their profit margins. Tomatoes are highly perishable and when produce is ready for harvesting
and markets are not available, farmers are faced with a lot of post harvests loses. This is because the society
lacks cold storage facility to store the produce even when there is glut. On many occasions, the buyers
determine the prices of the produce because farmers lack sorting and grading shed to grade and sell their
produce based on quality. Finally, a lot of produce goes to waste due challenges with value addition because
what is not taken fresh is always disposed as waste.
MUSTARD SEED FARMER’S COOPERATIVE SOCIETY was registered in 2015 with initial membership of 70 (24
F 46 M) which reduced to 46 (12 F 34 M) currently. The cooperative is located in Tembelio Ward in Moiben
Sub-county and is producing vegetables and fruits of up to 6 tons per week. Two (2) tons are sold to VEGpro
Exporters. It has Share capital of almost KES 3 million and sales turn-over of KES 3 million per season. The
cooperative diversified into a number of other economic activities including Agro vet inputs stocking, Input
distribution, Dairy, Coffee, Avocado, Passion and Macadamia production. It employed 2 permanent staff and
5 casuals. The cooperative has a 3 years strategic plan (2016-19).
This cooperative has a great potential in horticulture production for both vegetables and fruits since members
are committed and could produce throughout the year using irrigation. Most farmers have basic education
which is an advantage in grasping technical massages during horticultural crops trainings. Stocking of inputs
makes it easy for members to access inputs in time and at reasonable prices and this contributes to
maintaining volumes and quality of produce. Farmers could also access the inputs in a check-off system of
payments. The cooperative also accesses loans from the County government at low interest rates and this
money is loaned to members for crop production.
The Cooperative has huge potential to develop since it has experienced manager with very good qualifications.
This coupled with the fact that the organization has a strategic plan and a strong network with partners could
enable collaborations in various activities especially where they could not deliver alone. Modern technology is
always associated with development because it creates efficiencies and effectiveness in most systems. The
society has a well computerized system and has employed qualified staff in key areas especially those dealing
in finances and technical issues. The membership base of this society is wide, with potential to produce high
38
volumes of produce especially if they venture into contract farming with export companies. Finally, the major
challenge facing this society is maintaining quality of produce due to lack of cold storage and testing facilities.
Value addition of various produce especially Passion fruit is also still a challenge.
3.17 SUMMARY OF THE SBOS ASSESSMENT RESULTS ACROSS THE COUNTIES
Table 1: Summary of the capacity and performance scores by counties
County
Leadership
Adaptive capacity
Management capacity
Operational capacity
Supply, processing and
marketing
Average scores
Bomet 0.35 0.00 0.21 0.30 0.32 0.20
Bungoma 0.06 0.25 0.29 0.25 0.34 0.24
Kajiado 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.25 0.09 0.09
Kiambu 0.04 0.15 0.08 0.10 0.16 0.11
Kitui 0.06 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.21 0.14
Laikipia 0.23 0.22 0.13 0.20 0.14 0.19
Machakos 0.17 0.3 0.38 0.35 0.43 0.33
Makueni 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.30 0.22
Meru 0.11 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.27 0.23
Nakuru 0.11 0.30 0.17 0.30 0.43 0.24
Nandi 0.21 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.34 0.28
Narok 0.19 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.32 0.35
Nyandarua 0.29 0.45 0.52 0.10 0.25 0.34
Nyeri 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.25 0.11 0.10
Trans Nzoia 0.0 0.0 0.23 0.20 0.45 0.18
Uasin Gishu 0.0 0.0 0.11 0.10 0.18 0.10
Overall 0.13 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.27 0.21
Table 1 illustrates the average capacity indices across the performance areas and county. Generally, the
farmer groups assessed in this study are below average in capacity and performance (0.21). This means that
most of the SBOs are just beginning to develop structures required for effective performance in the key
capacity areas. Supply, processing and marketing recorded the highest score (0.27), although below-the edge
performance in terms of development stages. This was followed closely by operational capacities (0.23). The
39
lowest capacity scores were recorded in leadership (0.13) and adaptive capacity components (0.19). This
suggests need for immediate intervention in all the components critical for the SBOs to meet their mandates.
Across the county, Kiambu and Uasin Gishu recorded the lowest capacity and performance scores in almost
all areas. As indicated in the previous section, horticulture enterprise is a relatively new activity in the Uasin
Gishu area and farmers are still at a junction between transitioning out of other enterprises into horticulture
on a substantial commercial basis. Most of the self-help groups are in nascent stage, which is the earliest
stage of organizational development. There is great opportunity to woo farmers into horticulture farming in
areas like Uasin Gishu by demonstrating the economic benefits of engaging in horticulture production across
all the assessed counties SBOs which are also wanting in terms of performance. These two areas are in dire
need of urgent interventions (articulated in county reports) to enhance incomes to their member-farmers.
Even though all the areas recorded lowest performance, highest performance across the counties was recorded
in Narok (0.35), Nyandarua (0.34), and Machakos (0.33) counties. These counties have some of the slightly
well-established cooperatives such as Ole-riondo, Kasinga Mung’ala, Mulot, and Namunyak among others. The
areas also have relatively good access to good soils, water and better markets compared to all the other
counties.
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 CONCLUSION
Kenya liberalized her market to improve efficiency and enhance market linkages for smallholder farmers from
the late 1980s. The expected positive response by the private sector in areas with limited market infrastructure
has however been very limited. The functioning of markets is constrained by high transaction costs and
coordination problems along the production-to-consumption value chain. New kinds of institutional
arrangements are needed to reduce these costs and fill the vacuum left when governments withdrew from
markets in the era of structural adjustments. Farmer groups and especially horticulture cooperatives play an
integral role in the horticulture value chain in the local industry as majority of the smallholder rely on them to
market their perishable commodity, mainly horticulture produce. Cooperatives however continue to experience
a plethora of challenges that impact their performance as business organizations and in most cases operate
as welfare organizations.
The assessed horticulture farmer groups were found to face a number of constraints that negatively impact
on their performance and therefore service delivery to farmers. There is sufficient and consistent evidence
that these groups are poorly governed, are not dynamic, lack appropriate human resource policies, operate
below capacity, and a good number are financially unsustainable.
Results indicate that apart from overall stated functions or activities of co-operatives, most organizations did
not seem to have concrete, competitive strategies to enhance their growth and development and achieve
member satisfaction. A very small number of the SBOs assessed have business plans. Further, there is a
general lack of diversity of skills, knowledge and experience among most organization leaderships, with the
biggest constraint being inadequate financial management skills. Except for a few, there is limited
management capacity in the assessed co-operatives with majority still requiring capacity building on certain
key issues such as financial management and strategic planning. Likewise, most organizations have a low
active membership compared to the total registered membership which limits the business volumes and
operational efficiency.
40
Most of the organizations do not have systems in place to manage change. Many organizations assessed have
not embraced the concept of strategic planning even though it’s a legal requirement for the registered
cooperatives. Majority have not developed a plan while the internalization and operationalization of the
strategic plans in some organizations that have it is still very low. The quality of the plan in some cases show
inadequate skills in strategic planning. The culture of organization learning scored poorly in most organizations
with weak monitoring and evaluation systems and low adoption of ICT. Almost all organizations have at least
one partner, but the partnership is not structured, or formalized in most cases, majority being produce buying
companies and extension service providers.
Majority of the SBOs lacked adequate staffing especially in management. Even those that had some staffing
generally lacked well established human resources system or HR plan for staff recruitment, retention, training
and development. Notably, most farmer organizations did not have qualified produce graders and facilities
for produce handling and grading as most relied on buyers like VEGpro for produce collection and grading.
Most groups also mentioned inadequate funding as a challenge that is limiting effective service provision and
performance, which calls for interventions in resource mobilization. Almost all of the SBOs operate below
capacity especially due to inadequate facilities. Share contribution in most SBOs is very low and contribution
has since stopped making it hard to run the operations or fund the budgets especially on development or
structural investments. Majority of organizations seemed to be unable to fully fund their budgets even
though they had a long list of what to do. The use of computers or modern technology in business operations
was also limited to a few organizations due to lack of funds. Less than a third of the organizations were
operating in their own premises, with some having rentals and undeveloped plots.
Weak linkages in extension service provision to members was observed in majority of the SBOs. The
organizations do not have or provide extension service but rely mostly on development agencies. The services
offered in most organizations include facilitating provision of farm input services, extension services, and
financial services. A few organizations provide household goods to members.
Produce collection remains a major problem in most societies which lack essential infrastructure for cold chain
management yet have farmers dispersed over wide radius with poor road network. Produce rejection is also
a major concern in these societies and this affect the competitiveness of the horticulture produce in local,
regional and export market. This is one of the key areas that the HortIMPACT program will need to focus on
to enhance competitiveness. Still there is a very big variation in produce collection during wet and dry seasons.
All the assessed SBOs are in the nascent stage. The HortIMPACT program will therefore need to employ a
focused and gradual approach to address these constraints, first targeting those interventions meant to enable
the SBOs get their basics right. Leadership in particular could prove a hard challenge to address in the short-
run given the reluctance of management committee members to accept their limitations.
Opportunity for real and sustainable impact exists for the HortIMPACT program in a number of key areas. All
groups requiring capital investment as linkages with financial service providers was mentioned as the key
requirement, and not handouts from the program management. This coupled with optimism from the leaders,
present opportunity for the program to realize and even surpass the targeted milestones in the program
component goals.
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
In line with the objectives of the assignment, this section is divided into two; Recommendations for
implementation of the capacity building initiatives and future Monitoring of the capacity building initiatives.
41
Some of the SBOs disclosed formal working relationships with other development partners in the horticulture
industry with similar development goals as HortIMPACT. The study recommended the importance of the
HortIMPACT to work closely with other agencies offering horticulture assistance to avoid duplication and ensure
efficient use of resources.
The need to focus on strategic planning and business plans development process. Most of the cooperatives
are still run as welfare ad hoc basis rather than business entities. It is recommended that the HortIMPACT
program engage professionals who are well-versed in strategic planning process to first sensitize the leaders
of the SBOs on the importance of strategic thinking and planning prior to facilitation to develop one (strategic
plan). This is to avoid the poor-quality strategic plans such as the ones observed during the evaluation and
lack of their implementation.
In overall and based on the capacity scores achieved on performance areas by each of the assessed SBOs
(Table 2), the following top ranked 42 SBOs presented in bold are recommended for HortIMPACT programme
partnership and support in the critical areas highlighted for each of the organization.
Table 2. Ranks of individual SBOs based on capacity score
Ranking Sbo Capacity Score
1. Nyandarua Oleriondo Hort 0.760
2. Bungoma Namubila 0.720
3. Makueni Makiyika 0.720
4. Machakos Kasinga Mung'ala 0.650
5. Narok Namunyak Hort 0.610
6. Narok Mulot Coop 0.570
7. Nandi Kaptumo Hort 0.500
8. Narok Mau Farmers 0.500
9. Kajiado Eporo Women Group 0.480
10. Bomet Abosi 0.470
11. Meru Timau Growers 0.460
12. Laikipia Umande 0.440
13. Kitui Nzamka 0.420
14. Meru Potatoes Coop 0.410
15. Nandarua Mirangine 0.410
16. Machakos Kaani Fruits 0.410
17. Laikipia Kilimo 0.380
18. Nakuru New Molo Farmers 0.380
19. Nakuru Subukia Avocado 0.380
20. Bomet Nyongores 0.360
21. Nandi Potato Growers 0.360
22. Kitui Chuluni 0.350
23. Nyandarua Ol Arwagwei 0.350
24. Nandi Ogilgei Bidii 0.330
25. Kiambu Kabunge 0.330
26. Kiambu Gatundu North Agribusiness 0.320
27. Bomet Isei 0.300
28. Nandi Lessos Hort 0.290
29. Lakipia Thakala 0.260
30. Nyandarua Soko Mpya 0.260
31. Meru County Banana 0.240
32. Machakos Mango Value Chain Ass 0.240
33. Uasin Gishu Kapteldon 0.240
34. Trans Nzoia Siuna Growers 0.230
35. Narok Mosiro Coop 0.220
36. Makueni Kithoni Farmers
0.210
37. Trans Nzoia Sitatu 0.200
42
38. Nakuru Star Light Farmers 0.200
39. Trans Nzoia Nyasasaba 0.170
40. Uasin Gishu Kutsi 0.170
41. Uasin Gishu Kimoluet Farmers Coop 0.170
42. Nakuru Mau Narok Rural Farmers 0.170
43. Nyeri Sebeke Hort 0.160
44. Kajiado Rombo Farmers Coop 0.150
45. Bungoma Green 0.140
46. Bomet Ndaraweta 0.130
47. Trans Nzoia Kilongei 0.110
48. Machakos Masii Hort 0.110
49. Nyeri Amka Twende 0.110
50. Kajiado Namelok 0.110
51. Kitui Mwingi 0.100
52. Kajiado Friends Of Kilimanjaro 0.100
53. Bungoma Kimaeti 0.090
54. Makueni Kwa Kyai Rural 0.090
55. Kiambu Zuri Blooms 0.080
56. Nyeri Saflo 0.070
57. Nyeri Wamwaki 0.070
58. Laikipia Karunga 0.050
59. Meru Friends Sacco 0.050
60. Makueni County Fruit Processors 0.050
61. Uasin Gishu Mustard Seed 0.050
62. Bungoma 3km 0.040
63. Kitui Kitui 0.030
64. Kiambu Kariko 0.020
Future Monitoring of the capacity building initiatives; monitoring of the capacity building programs developed
under HortIMPACT should focus on the implementation of the activities to be agreed on between the program
and the SBOs and attainment of the measurable outputs on a semi-annual basis.
In the medium to long-term, there is need to focus on the improvement in the capacity and performance
indices for the individual cooperatives and county. This can be assessed annually.
The assessment tool used in this exercise has some subjective components that require that the monitoring
plans maintain the design of this assessment. Prior understanding of the political context for the
implementation is critical for successful and useful evaluation.
43
5.0 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: L IST OF COOPERATIVES IDENTIFIED DURING SCOPING PHASE OF THE STUDY
County Producers organizations- cooperatives and groups identified for assessment
Value chains in which they operate
Key programmes Supporting horticulture in the county
Kajiado Friends of Kilimanjaro Cooperative
Society Ltd Rombo cooperatives society limited Elopo women group Namelok horticulture cooperative society limited
Tomato
French beans Passion fruits
County government, ASDSP,
KCSAP, SHIVAP
Machakos Machakos county mango value chain association Masii horticulture farmers’ cooperative society limited
Kaani fruit grower’s cooperative society limited Kasinga Mung’ala farmers’ association
Mango Avocado Passion fruit
County government, HCD, Vert, ASDSP
Makueni Muumbuni mango processing cooperative society limited Makueni county fruit processing Makiika fruit processors Kwa Kyai rural sacco
Mango
County government, ASDSF, KCSAP, EU-IDEAS
Kitui Nzamka farmers’ cooperative society Kitui horticultural cooperative society Chuluni horticultural enterprises Mwingi west horticultural cooperatives
Mangoes Passion Avocado Oranges kales
County government, KCEP-CRAL, ASDSP
Meru Meru potato processors Meru banana cooperative Timau potato cooperative Abogeta West Potato cooperative
Potato Banana
County government, ASDSP
Laikipia Umande farmers’ cooperative society Kilimo fifadhi commercial villages Nakaro group Karinga Jikaze group
French beans County government, ASDSP, SHAPE UP, EU-IDEAS
Nyandarua Ol-argwai cooperative society Arbadare horticulture cooperative society Murata crop society
Ol-loliondo group
Potato Carrot Cabbage
County government, ASDSP, IFDC, EU-IDEAS
Nakuru Subukia avocado FCS New Molo FCS Star light FCS Mau Narok FCS Lomos FCS Thawaka FCS
Avocado Varied
County government, ASDSP
Transzoia Sitatu Fresh cooperative society French beans,
Dairy
County Government, ASDSP,
NARIGP/KCSAP
Uasin Gishu Master seeds Cooperatives
Kimoluet C.B. O Ngala C.B.O (local vegetable) Kutsi C.B.O (Passion fruits)
French Beans,
Onion, Cabbages, Tomatoes kales Local Vegetables Passion Fruit
County Government, European
Union, NARIG/KCSAP, ASDSP, CIP
44
Bungoma Namobila CBO Green Warriors CBO Kimaeti CBO 3KM SACCO
Tomatoes Tomatoes Bananas Bananas
ASDSP, RTI (KCDMSDA), County Government, Fruit Plain Organization, SHEP-PLUS
Nandi Nandi hills Potato growers’ cooperatives Kaptumu Horticultural farmers’ cooperative
Mosoriot horticultural passion fruit LOHGRAS CBO
Potatoes Passion fruit passion fruit Passion fruit
Passion Fruits
NARIGP, ASDSP, County Government, Exporters ACD Meru greens, EPZ, HABEX AGRO
Bomet Ndarawetta Potato Producers cooperative society Nyangoris Avocado Cooperative Society
Abose Horticultural cooperative Isei Farmers cooperatives
Potatoes Avocado Multipurpose (tomato)
Avocado
ASDSP, KCSAP, DEEPA, NORAD, Dr. Baboon, County Government, ADB, KCSAP, AVCD SNV, NARIGP, ADB, Exporters,
County Government
Narok Mao farmers Initiative cooperative Namanyak farmers Cooperatives MULOT Farmers Cooperatives A self-Help Group in Mosiro
Potatoes Avocado Avocado Tomatoes and irrigated horticulture
ASDSP, KCSAP, DEEPA, NORAD, County Government, ADB, AVCD SNV, NARIGP, ADB, Exporters, County Government
Kiambu Gatundu Agribusiness cooperative society
Vineyard economic empowerments group Kariko Unity CBO Zuri flower farmers’ cooperative society
Banana Potatoes
Potatoes Flowers and other vegetables
Twiga foods, PARMAT flour making, County Government, Urban and
Peri-urban, Shep-Plus, ASDSP, FCI, Vineyard
Nyeri Sebeke Horticulture farmers’ cooperative Amukatuende Umoja Horticultural Group within Sagana irrigation scheme
Potatoes Onion Several horticultural crops
ADB, County Government, ASDSP, IFDC, SHIVAP
45
SUMMARY FOR ANALYSIS OF CAPACITIES ACROSS THE COUNTY
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges
Leadership Most cooperative have mission and vision
articulated well
AGM and elections held regularly
Board has a wide range of skills, women
and youth are well represented
Roles clearly specified and discharged
Mission needs to be communicated to
members
Low member mobilization
Adaptive capacity Have strong network of partners with
input companies, exporters and County
government,
Have member training and information
sharing
Partnerships not formalized
Performance not recorded and
reviewed
Management capacity Management has ability to develop
budgets and execute.
Lack an experienced manager in
cooperative management
Financial reports not audited and not
presented to members
Lack of HR system policy
Inadequate qualified staff in key
positions
Operation capacity Adequate access to power
Adequate member communication
Information management is not
computerized
Lack documented operational
procedures
Lack a strong asset base
Supply, Processing and
marketing
Have a wide membership base for
produce collection
Adequate extension service offered to
members
Have adequate skills and support in crop
protection and conservation
Have no access to a cold storage
facility
Have no testing produce facility
Inadequate produce grading at
produce collection centers
Challenges with value addition.
Productivity and
financial performance
High sales turnover
Good farmer payment rates (75%)
Low profit margin
DESCRIPTION OF THE STATES OF CAPACITIES
1. LEADERSHIP
Most cooperatives have their mission and vision written well but when it is not communicated to members so that
they know they may lose direction. Most cooperatives confine the mission and vision to the officials of the society
and this could be the reason to members not being active in the society’s activities. The leadership is supposed to
provide inspiration, direction, innovations to the group to make them reach great heights. This is the reason why
most societies do not grow.
2. ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
From the assessment results most cooperatives are able to develop networks with various partners, but these
partnerships do not develop into substantial outputs because they are not formalized, and MOUs are never done.
The cooperatives are supposed to monitor and assess their member’s performance, record and review where
possible they can come up with recommendations and strategies due to any changes happening in their societies.
3. MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
Lack of experienced managers competent in cooperative management cuts across most cooperatives because the
position is normally given to individuals who are influential in the society without looking at the qualification an
individual has. A manager should have management skills and qualifications to enable him give directions on the
46
society’s effective and efficient use of resources. A lot of societies select their managers without advertising the
positions so that competent people may apply. This type of hand picking normally leads to problems especially in
financial records and planning which is because of lack of financial management skills.
4. OPERATION CAPACITY
Most cooperatives operate as if they don’t understand their organizational functions. This is because most of them
have access to power, have an office yet do not see the need to buy computers and printers to create efficiency
in managing their crucial information. A lot of information is on papers which are not properly filed and kept well.
They function without operational procedures which lead to uncoordinated activities.
5. SUPPLY, PROCESSING AND MARKETING
The core business of societies is to produce process and market the members produce. The societies evaluated
have a good membership base, extension support for members on production and adequate skills among members
on how production can be maximized. Despite all this there are challenges of low volumes of produce, lack of cold
storage to prolong the shelf life of produce and unavailability of necessary facilities like grading sheds. All these
necessary equipments should be given priority if the society is to make profits. Poor leadership affects the
prioritization of what needs to be done first and this leads to investing society money on relevant facilities.
6. PRODUCTIVITY AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
The productivity and financial performance of a society will determine whether the members will make profit or
not. Members could be selling their produce to a buyer, but their profit margins may very low. It is the responsibility
of the society management to ensure that it is carrying out its operations and financial functions in a way that all
members are benefiting and remain in business. This means that members should be assisted in inputs acquisition,
transportation of produce and negotiation of a good price to ensure maximum profits. The society should also
ensure that all systems used by farmers in production are efficient and members should be encouraged to build
the asset base of the society.
APPENDIX 2: ASSESSED SBOS PROFILES BY COUNTY
2.1 BOMET COUNTY COOPERATIVES ASSESSMENT REPORTS
2.1.1 NDARAWETA PRODUCERS & BUSINESS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD
Background of cooperative
Location: Bomet Central Sub County, Bomet County
Registered: 2014 Operational date: 6th Jan 2014 Members: Registered members then, 500 (M 200, F 300), currently 300 (M 100, F 200), active 300 (M
100, F 200) Production: Peak, over 10,000 packets of crisp per day, low season 6400 packets of crisp per day. All
produce sold in the local market to retailers. Share capital: Kshs. 250,000 million per year (500 members paid 500/= once) Turn-over: Over Kshs. 27.5 million per year up to 2017 when operations stalled due to processing plant’s breakdown Other activities: Acquisition of Inputs i.e. seeds, processing, crop protection and extension services. Staffing: Nil permanent, 6 casual staff
Strategic plan: 5-year strategic plan-(2014-2019) Table 1: Assessment results for Ndaraweta Producers & Business Co-Op Society Ltd
Capacity Area
Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
47
Leadership The coop. has mission statement which was read to members in AGM.
All groups represented; Board
members have skills acquired through training and experience; meetings done on monthly basis.
Management have written roles and clearly understand their role.
Team work as the Volunteer manager is assisted by both board and staff members to handle issues
The mission statement is not displayed and kept as a record and may not have been widely communicated.
The goal is not clearly stated
The coop. has not employed a manager as they stopped operations but have an acting volunteer appointed by the board.
Lack substantive manager
0.8
Adaptive Capacity
Have developed strategic plan Have no documented partnership
but there are some like the county government of Bomet, USAID through Farmer Advocacy and Consultative Tool-FACT
Strategic plan not updated regularly Partnerships not formalized nor
documented.
0.0
Performance recorded and periodically reviewed monthly and used occasionally
Members are involved through regular AGM attended by all members, co-op officer and
ministry of agriculture staff
Limited member involvement- mainly during the AGM and SGMs as seen in the activities of members.
No plans developed on information systems
0.17
Management Capacity
Have a manager holder of diploma in business administration
Limited Financial plans updated on an ad hoc basis
Transparent and structured system for decision making by the board
Budget constraints – limited financial plans/budgeting development activities.
The co-op is doing poorly on internal resource mobilization and access to credit
Limited sets on processes of reporting controls
Inadequate use of financial information-
audited reports Lack of HR system and policy
0.2
Operational Capacity
Critical staff positions are filled, and staff turnover is limited since 2014 when they were recruited.
Physical structure- office and space under construction- business currently in rented premise.
Have strong asset base (Production plant 950,000, 0.8Acre land
800,000, Water tank 18,000, office furniture 50,000, Partially finished building business premise 800,000)
Adequate access to power supply
Limited use of computer in day to day activity
Insufficient capacity in information management-lack of computerization
Lack of documented operational procedures
Inadequate member communication strategy- need to be reached most of the
members SBO registered as co-op but does not
follow tax requirement
0.18
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have link to public extension services
Provide input to its members i.e. certified seeds from Kisima farm
Have a wide membership base
about 60 Ha crop who deliver their produce to processing plant
Farm mechanization only in land preparation is between 26-75%
More than 75% members have received training in produce hygiene. Demonstration plot in each group
Low produce intake during dry periods Stiff competition from hawkers on Challenges with value addition Lack cold storage facilities High cost of production eats into profit
0.0
48
Have a shed for produce sorting and grading
The co-op is involved in processing and marketing crisp, 6400 packets
sold at 20/=
Productivity and Financial Performance
Opportunity to grow and expand due to resource base including potential membership
Low profit margin due to high operational costs
Not operational continuously due high cost of power for processing
0.13
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.8
Summary of Ndaraweta Producers & Business Co-Op Society Ltd
The SBO have potential of growth given its resource base, membership and wider catchment area producing Irish
potatoes of dry matter content suitable for processing and value addition.
The SBO still have opportunities in improved management capacity, food processing, packaging and branding and
marketing. It can also computerize its systems, mechanization of all production processes. Can put in place HR system.
2.1.2 NYONGORES FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
Background of cooperative
Location: Bomet Central Sub County, Bomet County Registered: 2013 Operational date: 23rd Oct 2014 Members: Registered members then, 500 (M 200, F 300), currently 300 (M 100, F 200), active 300 (M
100, F 200) Production: The SBO have not harvested the produce, crop is at flowering stage. Share capital: Kshs. 5,000 thousand per year Turn-over: Kshs. N/A - Have not harvested, the commodity avocadoes is at flowering stage Other activities: Acquisition of Inputs i.e. seedlings, fertilizers and crop protection. Staffing: Nil permanent, 1 casual staff Strategic plan: 2-year strategic plan-(2018-2019) Table 2: Nyongores Farmers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have some expression of SBOs mission and vision, but lack clarity.
Roles of management committee clearly specified and discharged
AGMs and elections held regularly where members
participate. The management committee
provides oversight and leadership.
Management able to mobilize and motivate members.
Mission needs to be communicated widely to members.
Goals lack associated measures and timeframe for measuring attainment
Board still lack a wide range of skills and women and youth not well represented.
SBO’s strategy is not clearly linked to
mission, vision and goals and is known by fewer staff.
Low member mobilization The manager has narrow background
and range of experience-limited experience in cooperative management
Management uncomfortable with complex matters of management.
0.42
Adaptive Capacity Have a well-developed strategic plan prepared by the committee.
Performance recorded and periodically reviewed
SBOs performance is partially measured and progress partially tracked.
Performance data rarely used to improve programme and organization
SBOs partnerships not formalized
0.0
49
Limited member involvement- mainly during the AGM and SGMs
Management Capacity
Have realistic shared goals/performance targets existing in most areas.
Financial activities recorded regularly and audited internally and presented to members monthly.
SBO have annual subscription of 10,000/= and annual registration of 5000/=
Have operational plan in production of avocadoes and
passion fruits.
Staffs have no experience in co-operative.
SBO have limited financial plan updated on an ad hoc basis.
SBO have limited set of processes; no system in place for assessment of processes.
Inadequate use of financial information-audited reports
No formal system for information management and to record internal knowledge.
Lack of HR system and policy
0.17
Operational Capacity
The SBO is legally registered
as a co-operative
SBO’s staffing have some positions unfilled
Have no office space nor building Insufficient capacity in information
management-lack of computerization Lack of documented operational
procedures Inadequate member communication
strategy- need to reach most of the
members.
0.6
Supply, Processing and Marketing
The SBO through its partners provide extension services to its members
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
Have a shed for produce sorting and grading of passion fruits
Low produce intake during dry periods Inadequate skills or support in crop
production and conservation. Inadequate produce grading at some
produce collection centres Total number of hectares is low Level of farm mechanization by
members is 10-25%
Have problems with produce collection The SBO is not involved in value addition Lack cold storage facilities Members have never had training in
produce hygiene
0.64
Productivity and Financial Performance
Low profit margin Produce losses due to quality problems
0.0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.36
Summary of Nyongores Farmers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd
The SBO have potential of growth given its membership and wider catchment area with high potential of avocadoes
production. The SBO has diversified operation doubling in avocadoes and passion fruits where the latter has been
marketed while the former is at flowering stages; this is good approach in risk management.
The SBO is still young, conducted election on 8/9/2018 to renew its officials; have opportunities in improved leadership,
organizational management, operations, production, supplies marketing and financial performance through capacity
building.
2.1.3 ABOSI HORTICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
Background of cooperative
Location: Sotik Sub County, Bomet County
Registered: 2016 Operational date: 17th December 2016 Members: Registered members then 73 (M 56, F 17), currently 52 (M 30, F 22), active 52 (M 30, F
22) Production: Peak, over per day, low season per day. All produce sold in the local market to retailers.
50
Share capital: KES. 14600 (73 members each paid 200/= once) Turn-over: Nil Other activities: crop protection services. Staffing: Nil permanent, nil casual staff Strategic plan: No strategic plan
Table 3: Assessment Results for Abosi Horticultural Cooperative Society Limited
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership The SBO have some expression of organizational reason for existence
Members share common set of basic beliefs and values
such as planting tomatoes. Ability to motivate and
mobilize members
Mission needs to be communicated widely to members.
The SBO lack strategic plan The SBO does not have board; is
managed by executive committee
members with limited diversity in fields of practice and expertise
Role of committee members are unclear. Committee still lack a wide range of skills
and women and youth not well represented.
Committee provide little direction and accountability as no organ oversights it
Low member mobilization √ Have no manager
0.58
Adaptive Capacity Have network of partners e.g. (MOA)
The SBO does not have strategic plan and have limited ability to develop one.
Very limited measurement of performance and progress.
Partnerships not formalized Limited member involvement- mainly
during the AGM and SGMs
0.8
Management Capacity
The SBO have realistic targets existing in some areas
The SBO have limited set of processes in planning and review
No staff employed Very limited financial planning/budgeting
Limited internal resource mobilization and access to loans.
Decision made on an ad hoc basis No formal system to capture and document
internal knowledge, records are with the secretary.
Inadequate use of financial information-audited reports
Operations run on day to day basis with no short or longer term planned activity
Lack of HR system and policy
0.67
Operational Capacity
The SBO have member communication strategy where the secretary has the mobile number of all members
Have building donated by the National government for office space
The SBO is registered as a co-op, though there are some problem with the corporate
status i.e. Filling returns
No staff currently employed Insufficient capacity in information
management-lack of computerization Lack of documented operational
procedures Inadequate member communication
strategy- need to be reached most of the members
There is limited use of computer in day to day activity. Use cyber but have email account.
0.2
Supply, Processing and Marketing
The SBO encourages extension services, but there are opportunities for improvement.
One member operates an agro vet and the co-op have
Low produce intake during dry periods Stiff competition from hawkers on Co-op is providing very little support to
educate and to access crop protection Inadequate skills or support in crop
protection and conservation
0.09
51
a written MOU with if to provide members with inputs
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
On farm training in produce hygiene is between especially safe-use of chemicals.
Lacks produce grading collection centers, done at the farm.
Challenges with value addition Inadequate cold storage facilities, just
bulking at farm level. SBO not doing value addition.
Productivity and Financial Performance
Low profit margin Produce losses due to rejection
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.47
Summary Abosi Horticultural Cooperative Society Limited
The SBO need capacity building on management and leadership and support in the infrastructure development
The SBO have opportunities in value addition, packaging and branding and marketing. It can innovate and adopt
modern technologies like green house and irrigation to reduce production costs.
2.1.4 ISEI MULTI-PURPOSE FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
Background of cooperative
Location: Bomet East Sub County, Bomet County Registered: 2014 Operational date: 7th May 2014
Members: Registered members then, 200 (M 127, F 73), currently 157 (M 118, F 39), active 157 (M 118, F 39)
Production: Peak, over per day, low season per day. All produce sold in the local market to retailers. Share capital: Kshs. 100,000 (200 members each paid 500/= once) Turn-over: Nil Other activities: Input stores, avocadoes production, crop protection services. Staffing: Nil permanent, one casual staff Strategic plan: 5 years plan (2014-2019) Table 4: assessment results for Isei Multi-purpose Farmers’ co-operative society limited
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have some expression of reason for existence drawn during registration.
Goal is clear i.e., bold with associated measure 156 members have 40 mango
trees. Members have common set
of beliefs and values on husbandry practices in avocadoes value chain.
AGMs and elections held (last one held 2016)
Mission needs to be communicated widely to members.
Role of board and management are unclear.
Board provides little support and accountability to leadership.
Have not employed a manager. Board still lack a wide range of skills
and women and youth not well represented.
Low member mobilization
0.17
Adaptive Capacity Have recorded performance, measured and
progress can be tracked SBO management learn
from performance data shared in the organization
Have network of partners i.e. Songoroi ltd, Mara farm, Solidaridad company, banks.
Have a strategic plan in soft copy, not relevant
Partnerships not formalized Limited member involvement- mainly
during the AGM and SGMs
0
52
Management Capacity
Financial reports regularly audited and presented to members (one in 2016)
Have qualified staff in key
positions Realistic targets exist in
some key area like harvested produce
Basic set of processes in core areas, with few improvements in consequence
Information management of the SBO is such that it has system in few areas and are not user friendly
Limited prior experience in co-op or profit business
Limited financial planning. General budget developed but not approved by
the board. Financial activities not consistently
documented or reported. Low internal resource mobilization,
poor cash management Strong dependent on manager Inadequate use of financial information Decision made largely on ad hoc basis
by one person Lack of HR system and policy
0.5
Operational Capacity
Some positions are unfilled No communication plan in
place, communication done through sub- groups
Have one computer from where database and reports are done.
Have some asset base i.e. an agro-vet shop
Adequate access to power
supply Incorporated as a
cooperative
Inadequate physical infrastructure; currently uses back room of an agro-vet as office
Insufficient capacity in information management-lack of computerization
Lack of documented operational procedures
Inadequate member communication strategy- need to be reached most of the members
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have limited extension services as it relays on extension given by Songorei ltd which are given 2 motor cycles to do the work.
Coop provides assistance in
helping members to develop crops and to improve conservation during farmers’ field days.
Co-op playing role in educating members to access preventive crop protection- use of chemical discouraged.
Co-op have about 6000-6500 avocadoes trees’
26-75% of members have
received training in produce hygiene
Co-op not involved in providing input to members. Have an agr-vet shop which currently closed.
Low produce intake during dry periods Very limited extension service offered
to members
Inadequate skills or support in crop protection and conservation
Lack produce grading centres Challenges with value addition Inadequate cold storage facilities Lack cold storage facilities and
transport. Co-op doesn’t market value added nor
processed products
0.45
Productivity and Financial Performance
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.3
Summary for Isei Multi-Purpose Farmers’ Co-Operative Society Limited.
The SBO have a good resource base of established avocadoes trees, good network of partners, motorcycles and input
shop and members who have basic shared beliefs and values. The SBO can easily be kick started if provided with
basic skills in the six capacity areas.
The SBO have opportunities in food processing, packaging, branding and marketing. It can also explore more in
Mechanization, innovation and technology in new varieties and grafting for high productivity.
53
2.2 BUNGOMA COUNTY COOPERATIVES ASSESSMENT REPORTS
2.2.1 KM SACCO FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, ENTERPRISE: BANANA PRODUCTION
Background of cooperative
Location: Kimilili Sub County, Bungoma County Registered: 2011 Operational date: 29th March 2011 Members: Registered members by then 281, currently 1152 (416M/736 F), active 920 (20% are
youths) Production: An average of over 5 tons per week throught the year. All produce sold to schools and
hotels who have given the cooperative the contract. Share capital: Kshs. 1.77 million Turn-over: Over Kshs. 2 million per year Other activities: Bulking of Banana suckers for sale and environmental conservation (running of a tree seedling
nursery. Staffing: 3 staff on one-year contract and some volunteers, there are no permanent
employees. Strategic plan: 3-year strategic plan-(2018-2021) Table 1: Assessment results for 3 KM SACCO Farmers’ Co-operative Society.
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership The group has a well written and articulated
mission which is displayed on the wall. The group has board members who are skilled
and undergoes 4 trainings annually on leadership skills.
There is team work and democracy in the cooperative management and members are consulted before making any decision.
Has a manager who is an accountant.
Minor cases of some
leaders not understanding their roles well.
0.0
Adaptive Capacity
The group has a strategic plan of 3 years. (2018-2021)
Performance evaluation and reporting are key activities.
The group has some reliable partners such as KUSCO, Ministry of Agriculture and VI agro forestry.
The group is well established under cooperative laws.
Strong partnership with local NGOs and government departments.
Failure by some members to attend
meetings in time/ absence of members during some meetings.
0.0
Management
Capacity
The group has experienced staff with relevant
skills. There are well set and clear targets. There are human resource and financial policy
documents Good information management in place
Loan defaulting by
members. Low saving level by
members, the group needs some capacity building on financial issues.
Inadequate funds to expand on some equipment such as ripening chambers.
0.0
Operational Capacity
There exists a well-structured communication channel which is also adequate.
There is a reliable electric power supply. It’s a registered Sacco No. 19/1998
Inadequate office space. Cost of rental can be
expensive-needs to build their own building.
0.0
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have adequate acreages for Banana production.
Transportation of produce from the 10 collection centers to the
0.18
54
There is a high potential for banana production.
The society has a field officer and also get trainings from the government Extension
officers. There is a big horticultural market
(Chepkwabi) in the region that has provision for value addition.
Has a big consumer base that can be utilized properly.
ripening chambers is cumbersome
Inadequate ripening chambers that cannot
hold all the produced volumes.
Inability to absorb all the produce.
Lack of value addition initiatives.
Competition from the local trading centers.
Productivity and Financial
Performance
High sales Fertile and suitable climatic conditions.
Small profit margin due to competition.
0.0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.04
Summary / Remarks on 3 KM SACCO Farmers’ Co-operative Society
The above cooperative society in Kimilili Sub County in Bungoma County is engaged in Banana production. It is a
strong society with 1152 members and has a great potential in mobilizing more farmer members in the region. It has
a great potential for success since the area has immense potential for banana production and has a huge market within
and without the area. The board is strong in terms of experience and qualification and if supported can assist the
society to succeed.
Areas that may require capacity interventions are; skills in cooperative management, financial literacy and
management, acquisition of a premise suitable for a cooperative society operations and transport and value addition
facilities.
2.2.2 KIMAETI FARMER’S CBO-BANANA PRODUCTION
Background of cooperative
Location: Kimaeti ward, Bumula Sub County, Bungoma County Registered: 2011 Operational date: 2nd Jan 2009 Members: Registered members, 5263 (2140 M/3123 F), youth 1800 Production: 270, tons during Peak season and over 10,000 tons per month during low season. Produce
mainly sold to Kibabii University Share capital: Ksh. 186,000. Turn-over: Over Kshs. 5 million per year Other activities: Agro forestry, Carbon credit business. Staffing: There are only 4 permanent staff. Sometimes hire 2 casuals
Strategic plan: 5-year strategic plan-(2016-2021) Table 3: Assessment results for Kimaeti Farmer’s CBO
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Mission and goals are well articulated and displayed.
The organization has a common
purpose and shared beliefs. Has experienced and professional
board members. Meetings held regularly, and elections
are held regularly.
Some influence from donors. 0.0
Adaptive Capacity
A strategic plan in place. An organized and clear performance
evaluation system. Availability of strong partners such as
VI agro forestry, Send a cow and GIZ.
Targets are not clear on production volumes.
Members don’t participate fully in planning but donors
and board members.
0.0
55
Management Capacity
Staff have agricultural background. Human resource policy in place. Well managed information system in
place.
Competitive recruitment of staff
Budget does not focus so much in banana production.
Weak on reconciliation of production reports
0.0
Operational Capacity
Has computerized system. Reliable power supply Good communication channels among
members and the board.
CBO not registered as a Cooperative.
Use a rented premise.
0.2
Supply, Processing and Marketing
The CBO adequately assist members in production, there are 2 qualified field officers.
Have ripening chambers and carry out some value addition.
Availability of training opportunities on processing and marketing skills.
Unreliable market. Non-mechanized production
system.
Inadequate grading/ cold storage facilities.
0.27
Productivity and Financial Performance
Good sales Minimal produce rejection
Low profit margin due to competition
No inventory May have a challenge with
liquidity.
0.0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.09
Summary / Remarks on –Kimaeti Farmers CBO
This CBO is found in Bumula Sub County and has exhibited strong leadership success with an advantage of a strong
donor support. It has a great potential to succeed due to the qualified and experienced board of management. It simply
needs to be officially registered as a cooperative society to enable it to enjoy the advantages associated with
cooperative societies such as periodical trainings, financial support from government and other related bodies. It has
acquired most of the necessary statutory obligations, has qualified field officers that can assist in mobilizing many
farmers to make it to be a more vibrant and a strong society in the region.
However, there is need to do capacity building in areas such as cooperative movements and registration. Other areas
include financial literacy and management, resource mobilization skills, market networking and linkages, post-harvest
handling. They also need to be assisted to acquire their own premise for easy and successful operations.
2.2.3 GREEN WARRIORS FARMERS FIELD SCHOOL
Background of cooperative
Location: Kabuchai Sub County, Bungoma County Registered: 2013 Operational date: 31st October 2013 Members: Registered members then, 50, currently 50 (22M/28M), active 23 (by gender -male,
women, youth) Production: Peak, over 10,000 tons per day, low season 2500 tons. All produce sold to middle men or
schools. Share capital: Kshs. minimal Turn-over: Over Kshs.2 00,000 per year Other activities: maize and beans growing at individual level. Staffing: There are no staff, but just group members Strategic plan: There is no strategic plan in place.
Table 3: Assessment results for Green Warriors Farmers Field School.
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Has a written mission embedded in the constitution
Has a goal written.
Members understand the group’s core values
Mission statement not displayed. The manager has little education
(Primary education)
0.08
56
Members participate in all decisions and no micromanagement.
There are checks and balance
in group activities.
Adaptive Capacity Have adequate land for increased production.
Have a green house. Hold regular meetings and
keep records on performance kept.
The organization has got no strategic plan in place,
Little evaluation on performance done at the organization level.
Lack of strong partners that can assist in terms of funding.
The partnership is mainly with government departments but is not formalized.
0.2
Management Capacity
Members carry out their activities democratically
Decision are made by all members through meetings
Has a bit of information flow
system.
Has got no human resource policy. The organization has got no staff. No clear set targets
0.17
Operational Capacity
Organized communication process; key areas of communication on production and marketing.
The group is legal-registered with social services.
There are no staff but just farmer members.
The organization has got no building facility but just carry out their activities at the farms.
The system is not computerized, everything is done manually.
0.0
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Availability of government services on diseases and pests control nearby (next to Plant clinic station nearby).
Can access on farm training from government departments when necessary.
No clear way on supply of inputs, members buy on their own.
Small acreage under production (12.5 acres).
Lack collection point and value addition facilities.
Effects from pests and diseases such as bacterial wilt, Tuta absoluta and birds
0.27
Productivity and Financial
Performance
Available market during low season.
High sales
Losses due to pests and diseases. Low profit during peak production due to
completion.
0.0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.14
Summary / Remarks on – Green Warriors-Tomato Production.
This group is currently at the level of a common interest group (CIG) which has adopted the FFs extension model.
Members are active and work as a team but is still far to reach the cooperative society level. But it has one major
potential in terms of the area being suitable for tomato production and there are so many farmers doing the crop. If
it’s reorganized well can be able to mobilize farmers to form a strong society in the years to come.
Areas of capacity intervention include; development of strategic plans, establishment of collection centers and grading
facilities, training on areas of cooperative movement and financial management, constitution of the board in
preparation for registration as a cooperative society. There is also need for a thorough capacity needs assessment.
2.2.4 NAMUBILA TOMATO CBO
Background of cooperative
Location: Lwandanyi ward, Sirisia Sub County, Bungoma County Registered: 2006 Operational date: May 2007 Membership: Registered members then, 600, currently 900 (400M/500F) active 500. Youths are about
10%
57
Production: Peak, over 400 tons per season, low season 3000 tons. All produce sold schools and middlemen.
Share capital: Kshs. 3000 (buying of Shares has been a problem) Turn-over: KES 4 million Other activities: Maize and beans, dairy goat keeping. Staffing: No Staff only the group officials.
Strategic plan: Currently no strategic plan, they had one whose term ended.
Table 4: Assessment results for
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Has a board in place There is a bit of gender
balance in the leadership. Roles are clearly spelt out.
Members don’t understand the mission and goal well.
There is no strategic plan. No youths in the board Lack of accounting skills among some
board members (Treasurer)
0.17
Adaptive Capacity Regular meetings. Some kind of collaboration
efforts exist between the group and some institutions such as ADS, Government departments, CDF and VI Agro forestry.
No strategic plan in place. Unorganized information system. No performance evaluation.
0.8
Management Capacity
A constituted Board. No staff employed to work for the organization.
Most officials only have the basic primary education except the chairman.
There are aspects of micro management.
No targets set and no evaluation process.
Lack of proper documentation. No policies and reviews. No staff trainings.
1
Operational Capacity
Has office structure and machines for tomato processing.
Has reliable electricity supply.
Has been registered with social services as a CBO.
No information flow; only retrieved on need basis.
No water supply, causing sanitation concerns.
0.8
Supply, Processing
and Marketing
Available land for production. The organization does not have her own
extension personnel but relies on government and ADS staff.
No organized input supply to members. No on farm training of members. Currently no collection of produce from
members. The processing facilities are currently
idle.
0.82
Productivity and Financial
Performance
No tangible liabilities, the group has assets worth 4.5
million
No registered sales No significant shares of members
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.72
Summary on –Namubila Tomato CBO-Tomato Production.
The group is generally weak in its operations and management and in other assessment criteria as can be noted from
the evaluation tool. It requires a thorough re organization since it is just a farmer group which faces a lot of challenges.
But it has some potential since it has assets worth 4.5 million which if farmers are mobilized properly to supply enough
raw materials can be utilized adequately.
58
The areas that may require capacity interventions include, that may call for an intensive capacity needs assessment
to come up with an effective action plan before being considered for registration as a cooperative group.
2.3 NANDI COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS
2.3.1 OGILGEI FARMERS SELF HELP GROUP
Background of cooperative
Location: Chesumei Sub - County, Nandi County Registered: 9/5/2016 Operational date: 2/4/2016
Members: Initially 270 members Currently 20 (8 women and 12 men) Production: Peak 5000Kilos weekly current weekly average is 700 Kilos Share capital: KES 154,000 (KES 500 registration KES 200 monthly contributions) Turn over: Every farmer paid individually but plans are underway to channel payment through the
group. Other Activities: Bee keeping. Staffing: No staff members Strategic plan: No strategic plan. Assessment Results for Ogil Gei Self Help group
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/ Challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have a well-articulated mission and vision
Meetings held monthly Member involvement is very high
Board involved in day to day running of the organization.
0.08
Adaptive Capacity Have a good number of partners Lots of member involvement in
decision making
Have no strategic plan No proper record keeping
and reporting systems
0.4
Management Capacity All members of the board double up as managers and seem to understand operations well
No clear management or HR structure
No proper financial reporting done
Erratic budgeting
0.33
Operational Capacity Have a good crop collection
center Members well communicated to
Their systems are mostly
manual Little operational procedures
if any
0.2
Supply Processing and marketing
Few but very active members Have a crop sorting shed
Need a cold storage facility Need better quality testing
methods Need better crop handling
equipment More extension services
required.
Heavy attacks by diseases leading to massive Losses.
0.64
Productivity and Financial Performance
All farmers are paid on time Little product rejection Good profits for individual
farmers
0
Average Capacity and performance index 0.33
Summary on Ogilgei Farmers Self Help Group
The Ogil gei self-help group was established in the year 2016 by a few members who felt disgruntled by the
management of the larger Mosoriot Cooperative society. The group is made up of 20 active members who still plant
59
passion fruits. However, since the woodiness virus outbreak in Nandi and Uasin Gishu regions, they decided to diversify
in a bid to spread their risks. This has seen them invest heavily in bee keeping as an alternative activity.
They have a functional crop sorting and collection center build jointly with USAID. During our interaction with them,
we observed a group truly committed to their course and one willing to learn. They need capacity building in governance
and management structures as well as help in streamlining and automating their operations. They seem focused and
a good bet for investment
2.3.2 LESSOS HORTICULTURAL FARMERS’ ASSOCIATION (LHOGRASS)
Background of cooperative
Location: Nandi Hills Sub - County, Nandi County Registered: 3/07/ 2008 Operational date: 03 JULY 2008 Members: Initially 700 members Currently 374; (60% Male, 40% Female) Production: Peak 15Tweekly, currently 1T weekly (Passion) Peak 2.5Tweekly currently, target peak 70T weekly (French beans) Share capital: KES 1.2 Million Turn over: KES 1,000,000 weekly paid directly to farmers Other Activities: None Staffing: 5 members (clerks seconded from Meru Greens), Manager and seedbed attendant voluntary Strategic plan: 2010-2015
Assessment Results for LHOGRASS
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/ Challenges Capacity
Leadership Have a well-articulated mission and vision
Very well constituted board Sub committees existent
Irregular meetings 0.33
Adaptive Capacity Have a good number of partners A good strategic plan in need of
updating Good records
Limited member involvement
0.2
Management Capacity Albeit being a volunteer, the manager is capable.
Have well trained clerks seconded by
their buying partner Good financial reports though not up
to date
Need more staff to jumpstart operations
Weak budgeting
0.25
Operational Capacity Have a good crop collection center Members well communicated to Have a bit of computerized systems They have a cold room donated by
SNV and run by Meru greens
Need to get their office complex constructed.
0.2
Supply Processing and
marketing
Quite a robust number of active members
Have a crop sorting shed Have a cold storage facility
More extension services required.
Heavy attacks by diseases leading to massive Losses in passion fruit farming
0.45
Productivity and
Financial Performance
All farmers are paid on time Little product rejection Good profits for individual farmers
Produce losses due to diseases
(passion)
0.00
Average Capacity and performance index 0.29
Summary
60
The Lessos horticultural farmers’ association was established in the year 2008 with a focus on the growing and selling
of passion fruits. This went on well until 2015 when the woodiness virus attacked and almost made the 700-member
strong association collapse. During their peak, the association produced and sold up to 15Tonnes a week. Those glory
years were characterized by strong management structures, which still exist today.
The members saved and bought 0.7 Acres of land in Lolduga center where they had plans to construct stores, crop
handling center as well as administrative offices. The plans are still in place but halted till operations return to normal.
The entry of Meru greens limited to Nandi County has given fresh hope to the farmers who are now growing and selling
French beans in plenty. They hope to gradually increase their capacity to 70Tonnes per week and convince the company
to construct a processing facility in the county. So far, they have benefitted from a cold storage facility donated by
Meru greens and SNV. The cooperative is still active despite the very rough times that they’ve been through and should
they get the required help and capacity building they will easily get back on track.
2.3.3 NANDI POTATO GROWERS’ FARMERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of cooperative
Location: Emgwen Sub - County, Nandi County Registered: 04/08/2018 Operational date: 04/04/2012
Members: Initially 241 members Currently 700; (431 Male, 31 Female) Production: Peak 20 Tons per ha, currently 15 tones (potato) Share capital: Turn over: 400,000 per week paid directly to farmers Other Activities: None Staffing: 1 member (manager), Management double up as staff Strategic plan: NONE
Assessment Results for Nandi County Farmer’s Cooperative Society
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/ Challenges Capacity
Leadership Have a clearly articulated mission and vision
Very well constituted board Sub committees existent Roles clearly specified and
discharged
Youth and women not well represented
0.00
Adaptive Capacity Have a good number of partners
Have a well-developed business plan
Good records Have partners e.g. CGN,
KEPHIS, The cooperative conducts
farmer trainings
Limited member involvement A good strategic plan in need of
updating
0.4
Management Capacity Have experienced board and a qualified manager
Good financial reports up to date
Need more staff for operations Weak budgeting
0.17
Operational Capacity Members well communicated to
Need to get their office complex constructed.
Have a good crop collection center
0.6
61
Have a bit of computerized systems
Need to have a cold room
Supply Processing and
marketing
Quite a robust number of active members
have already adopted some testing facilities
they have a shed for sorting and grading
More extension services required. need for a cold room challenges for value addition
0.64
Productivity and
Financial Performance
All farmers are paid on time
high sales turnover
Good profits for individual farmers
delay in delivery of seedlings 0.00
Average Capacity and performance index 0.36
Summary of Nandi Farmers’ Cooperative
The Nandi County Farmer’s Cooperative Society being a young growing Cooperative Society it is composed of 241 fully
registered members and another 400 aspiring members willing to join and be part of the cooperative society.
With farmers in Nandi County having limited access to available/enough clean certified Potato seeds, the cooperative
has since from 2016 been thirsty of getting clean certified potato seeds for them. The cooperative has engaged in seed
multiplication exercise and a number of farmers have so far benefited from the cooperative society where Farmers
meet their support from the cooperative, through provision of market from the produce realized/harvested, and this
hence boosts the household’s income.
With the mission, vision and goals set up by the cooperative, more farmers are going to gain more and higher with
teamwork spirit they have.
2.3.4 KAPTUMO HORTICULTURAL GROWERS’ ASSOCIATION
Background of cooperative
Location: Aldai Sub - County, Nandi County Registered: 03/07/ 2008 Operational date: 04/04/2012 Members: Initially 42 members Currently 103; (72 Male, 31 Female) Production: Peak 20 Tones a week, currently not producing (Passion) Share capital: N/A
Turn over: 400,000 per week paid directly to farmers Other Activities: None Staffing: 1 member (clerks), Management double up as staff Strategic plan: NONE
Assessment Results for Kaptumo Horticultural Growers’ Association
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/ Challenges Capacity
Leadership Have a mission and vision
Very well constituted board
Sub committees existent
Irregular meetings mission needs to be
communicated widely to members
0.33
Adaptive Capacity Have a good number of partners
Good records
Limited member involvement A good strategic plan in need of
updating
0.20
62
Have partners e.g. TechnoServe, equity bank
Management Capacity have well trained clerks Good financial reports up
to date
Need more staff for operations Weak budgeting
0.25
Operational Capacity Members well communicated to
Need to get their office complex constructed.
Have a good crop collection center
Have a bit of computerized systems
need to have a cold room
0.2
Supply Processing and
marketing
Quite a robust number of active members
have already adopted some testing facilities
they have a shed for sorting
More extension services required. Heavy attacks by diseases leading
to massive Losses in passion fruit farming
need for a cold room
0.45
Productivity and Financial
Performance
All farmers are paid on
time high sales turnover Good profits for
individual farmers
Produce losses due to diseases
(passion)
0.00
Average Capacity and
performance index
0.29
Summary of Kaptumo Horticultural Farmers Association
The Kaptumo horticultural farmers’ association was established in the year 2011 and registered in 2012 with a focus
on the growing and selling of passion fruits. This went on well until 2015-2016 when the woodiness virus attacked and
almost made the 103-member strong association collapse. During their peak, the association produced and sold up to
340 Tons per year. The years were characterized by strong management structures which still exist today.
Some members abandon the practice for the fear of diseases, the management reported to have lost 150000 shillings
in seed production. The plans are still in place but halted till operations return to normal. The cooperative is still active
despite the very rough times that they’ve been through and should they get the required help and capacity building
they will easily get back on track.
2.4 NAROK COUNTY REPORTS
2.4.1 MAU FARMERS INITIATIVE COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION
Background of the Organization
Location: Cow Forty area, Narok North Sub-county, Narok County
Registered: 7th May 2015 Operational date: 7th May 2015 Members: Registered members then, 100, currently 50, active 35 (by gender -male, women, youth) Production: Farmers were initially engaged in production of Snow peas, Sugar snap and passion fruits
and most produce were sold by farmers directly to COLRHUT which is a Belgium based organization. Though some farmers still produce these crops, COLRHUT has managed to
influence MAU Farmers Initiative to engage in Irish potato production. Target: This CBO is currently targeting Irish Potato production and all its members are growing Irish
potatoes which are yet to be harvested. Already some farmers have ready to harvest potatoes but none has been marketed.
63
Share capital: None Other activities: The office they built which was funded by COLRHUT was recently demolished because it was
on a road reserve. Other assets: Grading house, tap water Staffing: CBO is still run by the committee members. Strategic plan: No written strategy, 2019 was discussed as the year to source input together, target export
market, reduce post-harvest losses by 80%. Table 2: Assessment results for Mau Farmers Initiative Community Based Organization
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have strong values and shared beliefs
Women and youth well
represented Experienced board
members with comprehensive skills
Moderate board involvement and support
Roles clearly specified and discharged
A robust member mobilization
Have varied mission and vision, not written down.
Unclear goals without specific priorities
Lacks coherence strategy No election has been held since
members feel the current committee is effective
Below average analytical and strategic thinking ability
Leadership lacks financial reporting skills
0.17
Adaptive Capacity Have strong network of partners e.g COLRHUT, WAMU investments, TULA holdings, County and National government
Involve members in decision making activities conduct special meetings three times a month, report good attendance
Have formalized Partnerships
and currently ongoing sourcing market for potato
Have members’ training and information sharing platforms normally conducted by partners.
Do not have a well-developed strategic plan, though simple unwritten one
Weak in performance measurement and monitoring
Limited focus on evaluation and organizational learning; lack of information system
0.6
Management Capacity
Managed by committee members who have wide range of skills as one was a director in Mara
conservancy, another is a teacher and chairman of flowers/fruits association
Transparent and well-structured decision-making processes with broad participation
Well designed and user-friendly information management system.
Do not have staff, all coordination done by committee members
No financial statements and financial management skills
Limited and adhoc financial planning and budgeting
Non-robust recruitment, development and retention of managers
Lack of HR system and policy No performance evaluation of the staff
0.75
Operational Capacity
Have well-computerized systems
Have strong asset base Adequate access to power
supply High legal status
Insufficient capacity in information management, do not have computerized systems
Lack of documented operational procedures
0.6
64
Inadequate member communication strategy- need to be reached most of the members
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
Established a input store for farmers
Have a shed for produce sorting and grading
Have already adopted some testing facilities
Low produce intake during dry periods Stiff competition from hawkers Very limited extension service offered to
members Inadequate skills or support in crop
protection and conservation Inadequate produce grading at some
produce collection centers Challenges with value addition Inadequate cold storage facilities
0.36
Productivity and Financial Performance
Good farmer payment rates Members currently diversify
but through consultative meetings, CBO members have settled on production of Irish potato
Conduct 6 months timely financial reporting
Farmers sell directly to buyers still no bulk bargaining prices
Farmers complain of higher rejection rate which translates to lower profit margin especially on fruits
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.5
Summary of Mau Farmers Initiative Community Based Organization
Mau Farmers Initiative Community Based Organization was initially dealing with the following horticultural crops; Snow
peas, Sugar snap and Passion fruits. Currently it has been targeting Irish potato production and majority of its members
are now growing Irish potato though they have not yet marketed and already some farmers have ready to harvest
potatoes.
The CBO has linked farmers to buyers through contract and no deduction on farmers produce is done by the CBO as
farmers sell directly to Buyers. The main buyer which also contracted members’ passion fruit farmers is COLRHUT
which is a Belgium based organization. Rejected produce is sold by farmers to other local buyers who are other traders
and consumers. The CBO plays a major role in linking farmers to these buyers and can as well inquire and negotiate
about payments in case of delays or for better prices. CBO also helps in dissemination of information to members and
several partners which include WAMU Investments, TULA holdings, County government of Narok as well as the
government of Kenya through relevant ministries.
Mau Farmers Initiative CBO have certification from Global GAP (certification on good agricultural practices) as their
members adhere to the required crop production procedures. Funding is channeled through WAMU investment and
they are also partnering with TULA holdings which gives CBO members input loans which are majorly fertilizers and
chemicals. The CBO initially had a well-established office which was recently demolished by Kenya Highway Authority
because it was erected on a road reserve. But it is still operating with important assets like store, piped water, simple
waste/chemical disposal unit. The committee keeps records but currently have no proper financial statements and no
annual budget. Already structures are being put in place to ensure collective selling and small percentage be deducted
from members produce to facilitate proper management of the CBO like employing management staff, sourcing of
input together and to concentrate only on Irish potato production and marketing.
2.4.2 MOSIRO INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION
Background of Mosiro International Community Based Organization
Location: Narok East Sub County, Narok County
Registered: September 23rd, 2006 Operational date: August 2008 Members: Registered members then, 16, currently 32, active 32 (by gender -male, women, youth) Production: Produce sold by individual farmers to local market, no contract Other activities: Grading shade, stores, use irrigation facilities Staffing: No permanent staff but could hire labour Strategic plan: Have action plan (yearly updated)
65
Table 2: Assessment results Mosiro International Community Based Organization
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Strong and articulated mission and vision statement
Clear, specific and achievable organization goals and objectives
Clear, coherent and actionable strategy overarching
Moderately strong values and shared beliefs
Experienced board of management Effective managerial organizational
leadership
Sound financial judgment by managers
Moderate ability to motivate and mobilize members
Low diversity in committee membership
Irregular review of managers performance
Poor monitoring of potential areas of conflict of interest in the committee
Low board involvement and support
Below average analytical and strategic thinking ability
0.08
Adaptive Capacity Strong in performance measurement and monitoring
Effective in internal and external benchmarking
Insufficient strategic planning at high levels
Limited focus on evaluation and organizational learning; lack of information system
No partnerships and alliances
with other organizations Partnerships not formalized Limited member involvement
0.2
Management Capacity
Adequate support of internal resource mobilization
Concrete and realistic internal operational plan
Well-designed organizational processes
Transparent and well-structured decision-making processes with broad participation
Well designed and user-friendly information management system.
Limited and adhoc financial planning and budgeting
Inconsistent documentation and reporting of financial operations
Non-robust recruitment, development and retention of
managers No performance evaluation of the
staff.
0.25
Operational Capacity
Well-tailored and flexible physical infrastructure
Intact communication plan and strategy
High legal status
Low staffing levels and high turn over
Lack of automated management systems
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Active in assisting farmers to access preventive crop protection services
More than 75% of members using mechanization
High number of farmers receive on farm training in produce hygiene
Adequate provision of PCC services Adequate infrastructure Assist members in crop
development and conservation
practices
Underutilization of installed storage capacity
Noninvolvement in value addition Limited extension services to
members Relatively low crop acreage under
tomatoes and capsicum.
0.18
Productivity and Financial Performance
Ability to sufficiently high sales turnover by CBO and individual members
Low profit margins Reports considerable produce
losses during transportation to market centers
0.00
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.22
Summary of Mosiro International Community Based Organization
66
This organization was registered in 2006 but members opted to horticultural crops in August 2008. It was started as
a goat keeping organization before moving to horticulture specializing in tomato growing. Currently its members
concentrate in Tomatoes as a major crop and also grow Capsicum these are done under irrigation. All their produce
are sold to the local market which among them include traders, consumers, brokers among others as there is no
existing contract at the moment. Mosiro have some of the required assets which include grading shade, store, office
which was freely given to them by Mosiro Irrigation scheme. Farmers have different production systems as some
farmers use open field method while others use their own greenhouses. Mosiro as a CBO initially had a well-established
greenhouse system which was destroyed by flood in May 2018.
Mosiro CBO has a strong and articulated mission and vision statement known by most members with clear, specific
and achievable goals and objectives. Some of their committee members are experienced in management field so they
employ effective managerial organizational leadership with considerable financial judgment. The organization have
clear, coherent and actionable overarching strategy and strong in performance measurement and monitoring. It has
well-tailored and flexible physical infrastructure, and more than three-quarters of their members use mechanization
and intensification practices. Member farmers always receive trainings on crop development and conservation practices
as well as on-farm training in produce hygiene.
2.4.3 MULOT HORTICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of cooperative
Location: Ilmotiook Ward, Mulot. Narok West Sub-County, Narok County Registered: 24th June 2014 Operational date: 24th June 2014 Members: Registered members then, 249, currently 300, active 100 (by gender -male, women,
youth) Production: Produce sold to Songoroi Company directly by farmers Share capital: Not accessible Other activities: Input stores, machine hire, transport. Staffing: None, work done by committee members Strategic plan: Yet to prepare
Table 2: Assessment results for Mulot Horticulture Cooperative Society
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Moderately strong values and shared beliefs
Roles clearly specified and discharged
AGMs and elections held regularly
Have low board composition. Board still lack a wide range of skills and
women and youth not well represented. Low member mobilization
Irregular review of managers performance
Poor monitoring of potential areas of conflict of interest in the board
Low board involvement and support Below average analytical and strategic
thinking ability
0.42
Adaptive Capacity Strong partnership and alliances.
Lack of well-developed strategic plan Weak in performance measurement and
monitoring Limited focus on evaluation and
organizational learning; lack of information system
Limited member involvement- mainly during the AGM and SGMs
0.8
Management Capacity
Have an experienced board in cooperative management
Financial reports regularly audited and presented to
members Fairly well-established
decision-making process
Do not have staff, all coordination done by committee members
Limited financial planning and budgeting Lack of HR system and policy
No performance evaluation of the staff Budget constraints – budgeting
development activities.
0.58
67
No concrete and realistic operational plan
Relatively low information management system.
Operational Capacity
Consistent and well-coordinated communication plan and strategy
Averagely good legal status
Insufficient capacity in information management-lack of computerization
Lack of documented operational procedures
Inadequate member communication strategy- need to be reached most of the members
0.6
Supply, Processing
and Marketing
Active in input market
linkages High acreage of land under
avocado High number of farmers
receive on farm training in produce hygiene
Moderately high provision of extension services
Effective and efficient in PCC activities
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
Have a shed for produce sorting and grading
Low produce intake during dry periods
Stiff competition from hawkers Very limited extension service offered to
members Inadequate skills or support in crop
protection and conservation Challenges with value addition Inadequate cold storage facilities
0.45
Productivity and Financial Performance
High sales turnover Low profit margin Produce losses due to rejection
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.57
Summary of Mulot Horticulture Cooperative Society
This cooperative society was formed in the year 2014 by avocado farmers. They specialize in Grafted Avocado Hass
Variety. Current board was formed on September 24th, 2018 took over from the previous board members who
apparently have refused to hand over the office. Even on October 23rd, 2018 the day when this interview was
conducted, handing over by former board members was scheduled to take place, several society members were
present, new board members and other government officials including Deputy Sub-county Commissioner were present,
but the former did not show up. These delayed our interview which was conducted and attended by all new board
members who could not access most records including financial statements. The cooperative operates in a rented office
which is currently padlocked.
The society manages its members by clustering at ward level and then group ten farmers which is headed by a lead
farmer known by the name ILMOTIOOK. One Ilmotiook in every ten farmers and they are used in disseminating
information. In entire ward, members have different land sizes. In every financial year, series of meetings are
scheduled to take place. Two times board members meeting with lead farmers, three times board meetings and annual
general meeting (AGM) where board members, lead farmers as well as all farmers meet and discuss.
The society managed to contract Songoroi for buying avocado from its members. Songoroi through lead farmers ensure
that good agricultural practices are adhered to by farmers. Songoroi’s aim is to ensure that farmers strictly practice
organic farming and should not use fertilizer and chemicals in fruit production. Some farmers complain that most of
their produce are rejected due to infestations which could be prevented if only they could be allowed to use chemical
treatment. The society does not do not have a store or cold storage as Songoroi buy directly from farmers. Farmers
don’t use their own labour during harvest as Songoroi provide for this. Songoroi keep records of the quantity and
amount bought from each farmer as they pay them amount ranging from KES. 10 to KES. 18 per kilogram while
remitting KES. 3 per kilogram to Mulot Horticulture Cooperative Society. Through contract Songoroi also provide
seedlings in bulk to farmers which they claim they purchase at a higher price.
2.4.4 NAMUNYAK HORTICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
68
Background of cooperative
Location: Enaibelbel Location, Narok North Sub County, Narok County Registered: 28th July 2017 Operational date: 28th July 2017 Members: Registered members then, 49, currently 49, very active 23 (by gender -male, women,
youth) Production: Expected harvest time is February 2019
Share capital: None at the moment Other activities: Inadequate facilities. Staffing: None Strategic plan: No strategic plan Table 2: Assessment results for Namunyak Horticulture cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have strong values and shared beliefs
Very active board involvement and support
Chairman has relevant experience in cooperative management
Roles clearly specified and discharged
A robust member mobilization
Have unclear and unwritten mission Unclear goals without specific priorities Lacks coherence strategy Low diversity in board membership Below average analytical and strategic
thinking ability Leadership lacks financial reporting
skills
0.25
Adaptive Capacity Still new in industry but progressively building strong networks with partners
No strategic plan Partnerships not yet formalized Limited focus on evaluation and
organizational learning; lack of information system
Limited member involvement, the cooperative mostly conduct impromptu meetings
0.6
Management Capacity
Committed committee members who work voluntarily as the cooperative is in its initial stages, no produce, no sales at the moment
Do not have staff, all coordination done by committee members
No financial statements and financial management skills
Limited financial planning and budgeting
Lack of HR system and policy No performance evaluation of the staff Budget constraints – budgeting
development activities. No concrete and realistic operational
plan
Unplanned decision-making processes with narrow participation.
Relatively low information management system.
0.75
Operational Capacity
High legal status Inadequate infrastructural facilities Low staffing levels Lack of automated management
systems Insufficient capacity in information
management-lack of computerization
Lack of documented operational procedures
Inadequate member communication strategy- need to be reached most of the members
0.8
69
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
Suitable extension services offered to members
Adequate provision of input supplies to members
Reasonable acreage under crop expected to give cooperative high turnover
Inadequate skills or support in crop protection and conservation
Inadequate cold storage facilities Low farm mechanization
No on-farm training conducted on crop development and produce hygiene
0.64
Productivity and Financial Performance
High turnover expected Not yet harvested operates under debts
0..00
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.61
Summary of Namunyak Horticulture Cooperative Society
Namunyak Horticulture Cooperative Society was formed in 2017. A farmer becomes a member by paying registration
fee. Source seedlings as a cooperative. Purchasing contractual agreement is in the process of being signed with
Songoroi Company as a major partner. The society is expected to have its first fruit production and supply next year
2019.
Namunyak have strong and committed board members with strong values and shared beliefs. The cooperative is run
with clearly specified roles which are fully discharged. The cooperative has a chairperson who has relevant experience
in cooperative management. It has very active board involvement and support and a robust member involvement. The
cooperative was dully registered on July 28th, 2017 under the Kenya Cooperative Societies Act Cap 490, Section 6(3).
The cooperative is endowed with a wide membership base for produce collection with reasonable acreage under crop
which is expected to give cooperative high turnover
70
2.5 KIAMBU COUNTY REPORTS
2.5.1 GATUNDU NORTH AGRIBUSINESS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of cooperative
Location Gatundu North Sub County, Kiambu County Registered June 2014 Operational June 2014 Members Registered members then, 90(45m, 45f), currently12 (5f, 7m), active 12 (5f, 7m) Production Peak, over 80kgs/ month (sunny season), low season 40kgs /month ( Share capital nil Turn over nil Other activities No store, no machine, no transport. Staffing none Strategic plan Not written.
Table 2: Assessment results for Gatundu North Agribusiness Cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have a clear vision and mission known by members
Goal is clear and bold Have shared beliefs and
values and all gender are
represented
The goal is lacking timeframe. Currently no meetings are held
hence group is dormant. No financial reporting and roles
not being discharged.
0.08
Adaptive Capacity
Have documented information on monitoring and evaluation.
Have collaboration with KALRO Thika
Strategic plan is lacking. Have no information systems put
in place.
0.4
Management Capacity
Track record of learning and development of members.
Performance targets not documented.
No financial planning and general
budget drawn not annual. No auditing is done. Have not accessed financial
services Have no operational plans.
0.17
Operational Capacity
Critical positions adequately staffed.
Efficient communication plan-through phones.
Have a registration certificate as a cooperative.
No use of computers or tracking systems for members.
Have no office space
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Processing and marketing value added products.
Adequately empowered on processing procedures.
Limited extension services offered to members
No input supplies provision by coop
Low product production No mechanization for most
members. No cold storage facility.
0.56
Productivity and Financial Performance
Cooperative is dormant 0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.32
Summary of Gatundu Agribusiness Cooperative Society
Gatundu Agribusiness Cooperative Society is located in Mangu Ward, Gatundu North Sub County of Kiambu County.
The cooperative registered in June 2014 and started operating in the same year. It started with a membership of
71
90(45m, 45f) but currently there are 12(5f, 7m) members who are all active. The main objective of the of the group
is processing of bananas to various products such as banana flour,crisps and chips.
The cooperative is legally registered as a cooperative but facing various challenges on leadership and operational
procedures. The members claim that the cooperative became inactive due to lack of raw bananas for processing-
unable to compete with other traders offering a better price. The cooperative has no share capital, a written strategic
plan or computer for capturing records or data.
2.5.2 KABUNGE COMMERCIAL VILLAGE SELF HELP GROUP
Background of Self-Help Group
Location Lari Sub County, Kiambu County
Registered 2015
Operational 2015
Members Registered members then,83(20m,63f), currently33(23f,10m), active25(17f,8m)
Production Peak, over 1-ton bunches/day, low season 150kgs bunches/day
Share capital nil
Turn over nil
Other activities no store, no machine, buyer cater for own transport
Staffing nil
Strategic plan none
Table 2: Assessment results for Kabunge commercial village SHG
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity
Score
Leadership Have a written mission and vision Goals written in the constitution Official are well represented in terms of
gender and skills Roles are clearly stated and discharged
as chairman acts as the manager
Hold their meetings regularly which are well attended
Have common basic beliefs and values, hence cohesive as they are guided by by-laws
Strategic plan not written Have no balance sheets,
budgets but only records for farmers’ payments and bank withdrawal statements.
0.17
Adaptive
Capacity
Have networks with relevant entities-farm concern Intl, Equity
Members have training and information sharing.
Recorded data on sales not analyzed to improve program
Limited measurement and tracking of performance and progress.
0.6
Management
Capacity
Limited dependence on manager as group can continue without him.
Financial activities consistently documented and reported.
Limited financial planning and performance to budget not monitored.
Targets are non-existent for the shared goals.
Limited internal resource mobilization and operational plan not documented.
0.25
Operational
Capacity
Critical positions in the group adequately filled, turn over limited, meeting attendance is good
Communication to members is consistent and coordinated.
The group is registered as a SHG and has a certificate.
No use of computers for farmers’ records.
Improvement required to make physical infrastructures more effective and efficient.
0.2
72
Supply,
Processing and
marketing
Group provided with extension services Group provide inputs supplies to
members efficiently. Group develops members’ crops and
assist in conservation measures. Members educated on preventive crop
protection services. Members received on farm training in
produce hygiene. Have a produce collection Centre and
use size grading.
Low use of mechanization Few farmers sell their produce
as a group Have no cold storage facility,
Group does not process or value add produce ( indeginous/local vegetables)
0.45
Productivity
and financial
performance
High quality of members produces All produce for market is sold out
No audited accounts. Limited understanding of basic
financial concepts.
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.33
Summary of Kabunge Commercial village SHG
Kabunge commercial village SHG is located ii Kirenga ward, Lari Sub County of Kiambu County. The group was
registered in 2015 and started operations in the same year. The initial registered members were 83(63F, 20M), but
currently they are 33(23f, 10m) with 25 active members. The group produces indeginous vegetables and sells together
to supermarket with the assistance of Farm concern Internationals.
One of the members is trained on quality assurance/checking and as the marketing officer and hence checks on quality
of produce on farm before delivering to the collection Centre. This ensures that all produce that is size graded is sold
out.
2.5.3 ZURI BLOOMS FARMERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
Background of cooperative
Location : Limuru Sub County, Kiambu County
Registered: 07/10/2016
Operational date 1: 997(Kibera SHG), as Cooperative-8/03/2017
Members: 1997(42-26f, 16m)
Currently (67F, 19M), Active 37(18M, 19F)-those marketing with cooperative, others
marketing individually.
Production: Peak (Dec-Mar) over 600Kg/week, low season (Mar-Oct) 2.5 kg/week
Total sold 13,333 tons to – company
Share capital: KES 240,000
Turn over: 5.1 million (2nd Dec-26th May2018)
Other activities: Transport
Staffing: 0 permanent, 8 casuals per week
Strategic plan: In the process of developing one.
Table 2: Assessment results for Zuri Blooms Farmers Cooperatives Society Limited.
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity
Score
Leadership All genders are well represented in the official with a wide range of professionals.
The management committee, chairman (acting manager) are experienced in running cooperative
Mission need to be clearly stated and communicated to members
Strategic plan needs to be documented and communicated to members 0
Adaptive Capacity
Have strong, high impact relationships with relevant entities e.g. FPEAK, Flora
Holland
No strategic plan. Performance needs to be
measured and utilized. 0
73
Hold meetings regularly and members trained on GAPs, marketing, safe use of chemicals.
AGM held regularly and are well
attended.
Management
Capacity
Management committee trained on relevant areas.
Have an experienced manager Have a detailed operational manual Access financial services, farmers’
payment systems in place. Adequate internal controls of financial
operations. Members’ records are properly filed.
Casual recruited and trained by management committee.
Financial plans need to be updated and used to guide financial activities.
0
Operational
Capacity
Critical positions are adequately staffed, and turnover is limited.
Have a computer and database back up. Consistent and coordinated
communication to members. Legally registered as a cooperative
No building and office space.
0.2
Supply, Processing
and Marketing
Have an extension officer from department of agriculture.
Members trained on produce hygiene and protection.
Minor problems at produce collection Centre-size grading done by skilled casuals.
Have no cold storage facility or installed storage capacity
0.18
Productivity and
Financial
Performance
High quality of members produce All produce for market is sold out
Good farmer payment rates.
0
Average Capacity
and performance
score/index.
0.08
Summary of Zuri Blooms Farmers’ Cooperative Society Limited.
Zuri Blooms Farmers’ Cooperative Society Limited is located in Bibirioni Ward, Limuru Sub County of Kiambu County.
The cooperative started in1997 as a self-help group (Kibera SHG) but started operating as a cooperative on 8thMarch
2017. Currently there are 120 members (53m, 67f) who are growing the arabicum cut flowers. Those marketing
through the cooperative are 30 members (18m, 19f). The peak season is between Dec-March where the cooperative
market over 600kgs/week. They have a turnover of 5.1 millons from 2nd Dec to 26th May2017. Other activity jointly
performed is transport.
The cooperative employ 8 casuals per week and their collection centre is at HCD Limuru. They are in the process of
developing a strategic plan and the board is composed of 7 members (3f,4m) who meet quarterly, have a wide range
of professionals. The cooperative partners with relevant entities such as Flora Holland, FPEAK and Osho chemicals and
have been trained on marketing and safe use of chemicals.
Annual general meetings are held and are well attended as members are updated of progress and participate in
decision making. The cooperative is legally registered and board members perform
2.5.4 KARIKO UNITY GROUP
Background of group
Location Lari sub county, Kiambu county Registered 1st Jan 2011 Operational date 17th July 2008 Members Registered members then 12M, currently 100 (11F,89M), active 80 (8F, 72M)
74
Production (Irish Potatoes) market individually Share capital 6.2 million Turn over 1.1 million Other activities input store, tents for hire Staffing shop attendant, 8 casuals per season Strategic plan not documented but have ideas.
Table 2: Assessment results for Kariko Unity Group
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity
score
leadership Have common set of beliefs and values aligned with organizational purpose.
All gender groups are included in the board and meet regularly.
Roles are well understood, internal audit done.
Chairman has relevant experience Meetings held regularly and are well
attended.
Mission need to be written and communicated to members
Goal need to be written and indicate timeframe.
0
Adaptive
capacity
Partner with relevant entities e.g. Tai Sacco, MoA, chemical companies
AGM held, and members are engaged in deliberations.
No strategic plan therefore not able to evaluate progress.
0
Management
capacity
Limited dependence on manager
Internal resource mobilization exist-credit facility for members.
Members involved in decision making Managers elected after 3 years.
Performance targets need to be
set. No written budgets Information management not
comprehensive enough. Casuals hired considering on first
come criteria. 0.08
Operational
capacity
Have a building and an agro-Vet store.
Members need to market produce together
Communication plans need to be agreed upon.
No computers as documentation are manual. 0
Supply,
processing and
marketing
Extension services/training done by agriculture officer.
Member purchase/given on credit inputs from group agro-vet store
A wide membership involved in production
Most members use mechanization on
farms. Farmers have accessed on farm
training.
Lack a produce collection centre as members sell individually.
Have no cold storage. Members not involved in
processing produce.
0
Productivity
and financial
performance
Members make profit from sales(individually)
Group performing well in terms of share capital.
No record for sales as a group.
0
Average capacity and performance score/index 0.02
Summary of the group-Kariko Unity Group
Kariko Unity Group is located in Kinale ward, Lari Sub County of Kiambu County.
The group was registered on 1st January 2011 and become operational on 17th July 2008. The group consists of 80
members (72 males, 8 females). The board is well experienced in terms of gender and experience (skills). Timely
financial reporting and auditing is done twice in a year.
The group has land which they have constructed a permanent building installed with electricity. They also establish a
crop on the land that they hire casual workers to tender. They also have an agro-vet where members and other non-
75
members purchase farm input. Members are also allowed to get inputs on credit. The casual workers are seasonally
employed but the agro-vet attendant is on permanent basis.
The group lacks a written budget and documentation of the group is done manually. Annual subscription of KES 500
is paid up by members who also benefit from the credit facility of the group. Members are also involved in making
decisions for the group’s issues or activities during their regular meeting that they hold twice per month.
2.6 KAJIADO COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS BY CBO
2.6.1 FRIENDS OF KILIMANJARO INITIATIVE (CBO)
Background of cooperative
Location: Kajiado South Sub County Registered: Year. 2014 Operational Date: 2014 Members: Registered members then, 600, currently 600, active 300: Male: 380, Female 220, Youth:
102 Production: Peak, over 70 tons/week/, low season 40 Tons. All produce sold to vegpro Exporters
Company. Share capital: Ksh One million Turn over: Over Ksh 120 million /year Other Activates: have 4 collection centers and a grading shade Staffing: none
Strategic Plan: Have a clear strategic plan Assessment Results for Friends of Kilimanjaro CBO
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have a clear expression of organizations reason for existence.
Bold set goals
Have a strategic plan Membership groups well represented Board and management work together
Manager has no significant experience.
0
Adaptive capacity have strong, high impact relationship with other stakeholders
realistic strategic plan
some information systems in place
0
Management Capacity
transparent and structured systems for decision making exists
no employment contracts with no regular appraisals
very limited prior experience in cooperative
No outside audit
0.08
Operational capacity Strategy for communicating in place Legally registered as a CBO
Many positions unfilled No use of computers Physical infrastructure not
effectively used
0.4
Supply, processing and Marketing
Doing a good job in providing extension services but through
assistance Have more than 30 ha providing
produce More than 75% of members receive on
farm training in produce hygiene
Low assistance in provision of inputs to members.
Cold storage facility is charcoal made.
0
Productivity and Financial Performance
Capacity utilization is at more than 75%
Rejection from sales is 0-5% Inventory turnover is more than300%
Debt ratio is greater than 300%
Equity to total assets ratio is greater than 0.5
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.1
76
2.6.2 NAMELOK VEGETABLE GROWERS (CBO)
Background of cooperative Location: Kajiado South Sub County Registered: Year.2016 Operational Date: 2016 Members: Registered members then, 47, currently 47, active 30: Male: 35, Female 12, Youth: 5 Production: Peak, over 20 tons/week, low season 15 Tons. All produce sold to Vegpro Exporters
Company. Share capital: Ksh100,000
Turn over: Over Ksh20 million /year Other Activates: have a collection center and a grading shed Staffing: none employed Strategic Plan: Have no strategic plan Assessment Results for Namelok Vegetable Growers CBO
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Board provides a strong direction in oversight and leadership
Hold regular meetings and are routinely well attended
Overarching strategy missing Limited understanding of basic
financial concept Manager able to cope with some
complexity and ambiguity
0.17
Adaptive capacity Performance measured, and progress tracked in multiple ways
Some key relationships
With relative entities for profit
Limited ability to develop strategic plan
Performance data occasionally used by staff
0.2
Management Capacity
Significant prior experience in CBO for profit business.
Information is well designed and user friendly in some areas.
Realistic targets exist in some areas
High dependence on managers Limited financial plans Decision making processes fairly
established very limited prior experience in
cooperative No outside audit Sporadic initiatives to identify
promising staff
0
Operational capacity
Strategy for communicating in place
Legally registered as a CBO
No staff is employed Many positions unfilled No use of computers Physical infrastructure not
effectively used
0.2
Supply, processing and Marketing
Providing some extension services
Provide assistance to its
members in production. More than 75% of the members
have received on farm training Involved in marketing of farm
produce with minor problems Use recommended containers
No cold storage facilities Low assistance in provision of
inputs to members.
Hectarage is between 10 and 20 About 10% of the members use
mechanization
0
Productivity and Financial Performance
Capacity utilization is at more than 75%
Rejection from sales is 0-5%
Inventory turnover is more than300%
Dept ratio is less than 100%
Current ratio is at 0-101% Equity to total assets ratio is less
than 0.2
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.11
77
2.6.3 EROPO WOMEN GROUP (SHG)
Background of cooperative
Location: Kajiado South Sub County Registered: year. 2005 Operational Date: 2005 Members: Registered members then, 70, currently 70, active 40: Male: 0, Female 70, Youth: 34=48% Production: Peak, 0 tons/day/week/month, low season 0 Tons. All produce sold, they are still to start
production again Share capital: Ksh 950,000 Turn over:
Other Activates: Have a tomato processing machine, table banking Staffing: none employed Strategic Plan: Have no strategic plan Assessment Results for Eropo Women Group SHG
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity
Score
Leadership Have a common purpose with beliefs and values aligned with organizational purpose
Roles of board and management are
clear and functions well Organizational leadership actively and
easily builds rapport and trust with others
Holds regular meetings routinely well attended
Overarching goals and strategy missing
Manager has narrow background and range of experiences with no
education Manager has difficulty considering
financial implications of decisions
0.33
Adaptive
capacity
Have relations with variety of relevant entities
Limited ability to develop strategic plan
Very limited measurement and
tracking of performance and progress
Performance data is rarely used to improve programme and organization
0.6
Management
Capacity
The organization is doing adequate in internal resource mobilization, farmer payment system and cash management.
Have a transparent and structured
systems of decision making
Financial activities not consistently documented.
Limited financial plans Very strong dependence on chair
person
No prior experience in cooperative No outside audit No HR plan
0.5
Operational
capacity
Communication plan and strategy in place
Legally registered as a SHG
No staff is employed Many positions unfilled No use of computers Physical infrastructure not
effectively used
0.6
Supply,
processing and
Marketing
encouraging extension services playing a fairly active role in
educating members More than 75% of the members have
received on farm training in produce hygiene
Very little involvement in helping members to develop crops and less than 10% of members are carrying out this activity
No assistance in provision of inputs to members.
Currently no production PCC not in operation
0.36
78
No utilization of all the storage facility
Processing facilities present but not utilized
Productivity and
Financial
Performance
Dept ratio is less than 100% Currently there is no production 0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.48
2.6.4 ROMBO FARMERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of cooperative
Location: Kajiado South Sub County
Registered: Year: 2016
Operational Date: 2016
Members: Registered members then, 380, currently 350, active 120: Male: 220, Female 160, Youth:
25%
Production: Peak, over100 tons/week/, low season 50 Tons. All produce sold to middle men Company.
Share capital: Ksh 400,000/-
Turn over: Over ksh96 millions /year
Other Activates: tomato production and marketing
Staffing: 2 casual staff
Strategic Plan: only in the constitution
Assessment results for Rombo Cooperative Society
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity
Score
Leadership Mission statement exist and displayed in the wall
Goals and objectives clearly written values and beliefs clearly written I the constitution
All membership groups represented in
the management committee Management work well together from
clear roles Manager has post-secondary
education and some basic training on cooperative management
Strategy exists but not clearly linked to mission and overarching goals
The manager is able to with some complexity and ambiguity
Performance partially measured
0
Adaptive
capacity
Meetings held quarterly, and minutes recorded
There are plans to strengthen the organization
Early stages of building relationships and collaboration
The strategic plan is for 2 years Very limited measurement and
tracking of performance and progress
Performance data is occasionally used to improve programme and organization
0
Management
Capacity
Limited dependence on manager Doing a good job in internal resource
mobilization and loans to its members
The organization is doing adequate in internal resource mobilization, farmer payment system and cash management.
Have a transparent and structured systems of decision making
Limited financial plans some prior experience in
cooperative realistic targets exist in some
areas
0
79
Well designed, user friendly systems in some areas
Solid financial plans updated regularly
Operational
capacity
Communication plan and strategy in place
Legally registered as a cooperative
some positions unfilled No use of computers Physical infrastructure can be
made to work well
0.4
Supply,
processing and
Marketing
encouraging extension services playing a fairly active role in
educating members hectarage is more than30
More than 75% of the members have received on farm training in produce hygiene
No storage facilities Serious problem with PCC
activities Not involved in processing of
products Minor role assistance in
provision of inputs to members.
0.36
Productivity and
Financial
Performance
Net profit margin is at 0-4% Current ratio is greater than250 Equity to total assets is between35-
50%
%age rejection at MCC is greater than 41%
Rejection from sales is also greater than 41%
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.15
2.7 KITUI COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS BY SBO
2.7.1 KITUI COUNTY FARMERS ’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LIMITED.
Background of cooperative
Location: Kitui County. Registered: More than 50% are registered with the registrar of Societies of Kenya Members: More than 50% have Boards with good representation of Males, Females and Youth. Production: More than 50% have Horticulture produce production taking place.
Table 2: Assessment results for Kitui County Horticulture Cooperatives Capacities.
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Roles clearly specified and discharged
AGMs and elections held regularly
Boards have skilled members
in farming.
Mission. and Vision not well known to all members
0
Adaptive Capacity Have strong network of partners
Performance recorded and periodically reviewed
Partnerships not formalized Limited member involvement- mainly
during the AGM and SGMs
0
Management Capacity
Have skilled managers in farming
Inadequate regularity of auditing of financial reports.
Lack of HR system and policy
0
Operational Capacity
Use of phones to call and SMS members to communicate information.
Inadequate access to electricity. Insufficient capacity in information
management-lack of computerization
0
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
Low produce intake due to limited capacity.
Stiff competition from hawkers Very limited extension service offered to
members Inadequate skills or support in crop
protection and conservation Challenges with value addition
0.09
80
Inadequate cold storage facilities
Productivity and
Financial Performance
Low sales turnover Low profit margin
Produce losses due to spoilage and rejection
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.03
2.7.2 CHULUNI HORTICULTURAL & PROCESSING ENTERPRISE
Background of cooperative:
Location: Kitui East Sub County, Kitui County. Offices at Chuluni Market, next to CDF offices, 9 Km South of Kitui Town along the “Kitui –Mutomo- Kibwezi Road”.
Registered: 2006 as a Self-Help Group. Operational date: 25th May 2012 as a Cooperative Society. Members: Originally 54 members registered (32M, 17W, 5Y), currently 27 are active (6M, 16F, 5Y) Production: The fruits processed are; Mangoes, Lemons, Oranges and Passion fruit. Production is 29
tons per year. Processed output per day, 300litres Juice. Share capital: Kshs.160, 000.00 Turn-over: Kshs. 350,000.00 per year
Other activities: No other income generating activities. Staffing: 1 permanent Staff and 12 casual staffs Strategic plan: 3 Year strategic plan-(2017-2020) Table 2: Assessment results for Chuluni Horticultural and Processing Enterprises
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Mission and vision clearly articulated and well displayed in a banner
More than half of the leadership of the organization is aware of their roles and responsibilities.
Over 50% of the leadership are acquainted to the goals
There is a 3Year strategic plan (2017-2020)
Members bound by common beliefs and values
Board Membership (3W, 2M, 1Y).
Highly skilled through exposure. Clear roles and responsibilities and
understood by leaders. Leadership given good support. Proactive and supportive leadership. Skilled and experienced manager.
Members not fully aware of Mission, Vision and strategic plan.
0
Adaptive Capacity Have a strategic plan Performance evaluation done annually. Have strong network of partners; -
World Bank, Syngenta, County Government of Kitui, JKUAT, County Ministry of agriculture, Universal Traders Sacco-UTS), FAO, all with roles to play.
Evaluation done annually.
Strategic plan not elaborates Limited member
involvement- Only during the
AGM and SGMs No dividends paid to
members Performance/Evaluation data
should be used to retarget and adjust implementation for better achievement of goals. 0.2
Management
Capacity
Have experienced Manager trained in
Food science and technology. Gets credit facility from ‘United Traders
Sacco ;(UTS).
Very high dependence on
Manager. Financial reports last audited
in 2016 0.58
81
Stock controls at factory level well maintained.
No other qualified staff in key positions except the Manager
No audited reports Lack of HR system and policy
Decisions made by Chairman and Manager
No clear procedures of recruiting Manager, retention and training.
Operational Capacity
Use of Phones to call and messaging the members regularly in place.
Have access to adequate electricity. Legally registered as cooperative
enterprise by the Registrar of societies
in Kenya
No ICT equipment (Computers).
Weak recording and communication systems.
0.6
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Active in members education through stakeholders (Field days, Demonstrations).
Links well with input suppliers who supply inputs to Members.
60% 0f Members access crop protection services
Processes only 50% of Members produce(29Tons)
Inadequate produce grading at some produce collection centers
No cold storage for fresh produce, only for finished product (Juice) 0.36
Productivity and Financial Performance
Low sales turnover Low profit margin 20% Produce losses due to
lack of cold storage facility 0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.35
2.7.3 MWINGI WEST HORTICULTURE FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.
Background of cooperative
Location: Mwingi West Sub County, Kitui County, Office at Migwani Ward/ Migwani/Itoloni Village Registered: 26TH February 2017 as a CBO Operational date: 5th July 2018 as a cooperative Members: Registered members 62 (31F, 23M, 8Y) Production: 5Tons per year Share capital: Kshs.15,000
Turn-over: N/A Other activities: None Staffing: Management Committee of 13 persons Strategic plan: None Table 2: Assessment results for Mwingi West Horticulture Farmers’ Cooperative Society Limited.
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have clearly articulated mission and vision in booklet.
Roles clearly specified and discharged Board has a wide range of skills Carried
over from the CBO period. Board composition is all inclusive of
Males, Females and Youth. Experienced Manager and proactive,
gives good guidance to management on administrative and financial matters.
Mission needs to be communicated widely to members since the Cooperative outfit is new.
0
Adaptive Capacity Have a- strategic plan Have strong network of partners County
Ministry of agriculture, “RISE KENYA”, GREEN LIFE.
Low mobilization of Members
Strategic plan not elaborate. 0.2
82
Performance recorded and periodically reviewed
Members well involved in Cooperative activities
Staff have a wide range of experience.
Management Capacity
Have an experienced manager in farming who is a retired teacher.
Staff have a wide range of experience. Realistic targets exist Have qualified staff in key positions Some operational plans in place Fair resource mobilization plans
executed. Transparent and structured decision
making during AGM Organizational processes have been
developed to provide controls and reporting
Budget constraints – budgeting development activities.
Inadequate financial plans and information
Lack of HR system and policy
No structured system of recruiting, development
and retention of staff
0
Operational Capacity
Critical board positions filled Legally registered as Cooperative
society,
No use of Computers Restrictive office space
0.2
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Provides extension services through partner. organizations
Have common produce collection center
Low level of support to members in Input supply
No cold storage 0.09
Productivity and Financial Performance
Low turn over Low profit margin Produce losses due lack of
cold storage facilities. 0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.1
2.7.4 NZAMKA FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED
Background of cooperative
Location: Kitui East Sub County, Kitui County. Registered: 2013
Operational date: September 2013 Members: Registered members 199(169 W, 30 M) all active, no youth since they don’t own farms for
growing crops. Production: 1200 Tons per year (Sales 40Tons @ 15/Kg and 520Tons@ 12/Kg). Share capital: Kshs. 30,000.00 Turn-over: Kshs. 600,000.00 Other activities: None. Staffing: No staff, only 12 Board Members running the organization. Strategic plan: None. Table 2: Assessment results for “Nzamka Farmers’ Cooperative Limited”.
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Roles clearly specified and adhered to by Members
Strong and focused board of management giving direction.
AGM held annually, and members informed of the
organization’s status.
Mission and vision and goals not written and not clear to Members.
Strategic plan not in place. No Manager, the organization run by
Management Board.
Members have limited options; hence, brokers take advantage
0.25
Adaptive Capacity Have strong network of partners; i.e., Kitui Development Centre (KDC), County Ministry of agriculture, County
No strategic plan in place Limited member involvement- Only
during the AGM and Field days.
0.4
83
Government of Kitui, ICIPE, RTI, SYNGENDER., County Ministry of Trade, Cooperatives & Investment.
Performance data used to adjust targets.
Management Capacity
Board of management elected by farmers
Books of Accounts have never been audited.
No information management system in place.
Inadequate Human resource system in place to guide Policy and general development matters.
0.42
Operational Capacity
The Cooperative is legally registered as a farmers Cooperative LTD.
No employed staff, Board in charge Lack of documented operational
procedures Inadequate member communication
strategy. No physical office
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Partners offer crop protection services to farmers at far level
No extension officer for the Cooperative but uses partners to offer farmers the extension services
No cold storage facility, hence posing real challenges on produce quality
Inadequate quality control measures.
0.64
Productivity and Financial Performance
Low profitability Low sales of produce due to lack of cold storage (Sales only 40% of the total produce)
Due to inadequate options, Members sell 40% of their Produce to brokers.
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.42
2.8 LAIKIPIA COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS BY SBO
2.8.1 KARIUNGA JIKAZE HORTICULTURAL FARMERS’ SELF HELP GROUP
Background of Group
Location: Naibor Sub location, Muramati Location, Daiga Division, Laikipia East Constituency, Umande Ward, Laikipia County. (Kariunga Shopping Centre opposite Maiyan)
Registered: 4th Oct. 2012 Operational date: Jan. 2012 Members: Registered members then, 15, currently 42, active 42 (by gender 28-male, 14-women, 9-
youth) Production: Peak, over 182.7 tons per season, low season 30.45 tons. All produce sold to Kenya
Horticultural Exporters (KHE) Company Share capital: Kshs. 0 Turn-over: Over Kshs. 10.962 million per year Other activities: Input stores, Collective sales, input acquisition, farmer training. Staffing: 1 permanent and 0 casual staff, others are volunteers elected by members Strategic plan: Not documented
Table 2: Assessment Results for Kariunga Jikaze Horticultural Farmers’ Cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have clearly articulated mission and vision
Mission needs to be communicated to members and be documented to frequent referencing.
0.08
84
Board has determined and committed members with a range of skills and women and youth well represented
Roles clearly specified and discharged
AGMs and other meetings held regularly with good attendance
Strong member mobilization and feedback-oriented leadership
Share only one common value, could do better.
Adaptive Capacity Have a well-stated strategic plan unfortunately it is mainly recited by management and not documented
Have strong network formal partnerships e.g KHE, Twiga Food
Performance recorded and periodically
reviewed Have digitized information storage,
retrieval and sharing system. Effectively communicates to members
Need for training on financial management concepts for the management
Management afraid of ambiguity and arising challenges and would require
training Need advice on developing a
working strategic plan Not very proactive in external
resource mobilization
0
Management Capacity
Have a dedicated management team including the founder.
Financial reports regularly presented to members
Have paid staff competitively recruited
and performance reviewed regularly
Budget constraints – budgeting development activities especially due to scarce resources.
Need for trained staff in key
positions like accounts
0
Operational Capacity
Have well-digitized systems and proper neat filing
Have moderately strong asset base Adequate access to power supply at
the current office
Lack of documented operational procedures
0
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a rapidly growing membership base for produce collection
Constructed own input store for members
Have a shed for produce sorting and grading
Have already adopted some testing facilities though partnership with KHE
Very efficient extension service offered to members courtesy of partner (KHE)
Low produce intake during dry periods, would need to
improve water harvesting for consistent production
Single produce buyer hence susceptibility to price volatility
Inadequate skills or support in crop protection and conservation
Challenges with value addition, relies on buyer for packaging and testing
Have no cold storage facility
but requires one
0
Productivity and Financial Performance
Good farmer payment rates Timely farmer payment Effective contribution collection i.e.
through check-off system High sales turnover Minimal produce losses due to
rejection Good investment plans
Overdependence on compulsory member contributions
Ineffective external resource mobilization
0.18
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.05
2.8.2 THAKARA SELF HELP GROUP
Background of cooperative
Location: Laikipia west sub county, Laikipia County Registered: 2018 Operational date: February 2018 Members: Registered members then, 27, currently40, active 40(-male 29, women 11, youth)
85
Production: Peak, over4tons per week, low season3 tons. All produce sold to Mara Farming Company Share capital: Kshs.0 Turn-over: Over 1,352,000 Kshs. million per year Other activities: Input stores, Staffing: 7permanent and1 casual staff Strategic plan. No strategic plan
Table 2: Assessment results for Thakara Self Help Group
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Board member roles clearly specified and discharged
AGMs and elections held regularly All membership groups are
represented in the board
Mission needs to be articulated widely to members.
Lacks written mission
statement and goals though members know the goal.
Lack a written strategic plan. 0.33
Adaptive Capacity Have strong network of partners e.g. Mara Farming and Equity Bank
Performance recorded and periodically reviewed lightly
Have consistent attempts for member training and information sharing
Few partnerships in Inputs provision and training
Little experience in evaluation and reporting.
Strategic plan is not
documented 0.2
Management Capacity
Financial reports regularly audited and presented to members
Have qualified staff in key positions Some Operational plans and
procedures well documented and displayed
Minutes of previous meeting regularly read in meetings
Members consulted on important
decisions
Lack of HR system and policy Lack of Management team in
the group apart from the board Goals not documented Limited financial planning Share capital not fully paid
0.17
Operational Capacity
Adequate member communication strategy through letters and SMSs
All positions are filled with low turnover.
Registered at the social services
Insufficient capacity in information management
Lack computers Rented office space and store
are insufficient. 0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have an ever-widening membership base for produce collection
Have a reliable seed supplier through partnership with Mara farming
Have a shed for produce sorting and grading
Adequate Skills and support in crop protection
Lack of Cold store facility Challenge in value addition
0.18
Productivity and Financial Performance
Good farmer payment rate High sales turnover
Lack of prompt payment
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.26
2.8.3 UMANDE FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
Background of cooperative
Location: Laikipia East Sub County, Laikipia County Registered: 2016 Operational date: September 2016 Members: Registered members then, 80, currently 188, active 156 (by 24male, 121women, 9 youth)
86
Production: Peak, over 20 tons per month, low season 10 tons. All produce sold to NHC (New Holland Chips) company
Share capital: None Turn-over: Over Kshs. 3.06 million per year Other activities: Milk collection and sales, transport. Staffing: 7 permanent and
Strategic plan: No strategic plan Table 2: Assessment results for Umande Farmers’ Cooperative Society Limited
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Roles clearly specified and discharged
AGMs and elections held regularly and well attended
Board provides direction, support and communicate effectively
Lack clear mission statement Lack strategic plan
Board still lack a wide range of skills and women and youth not well represented.
0.5
Adaptive Capacity Board looks for opportunities for partnerships and growth.
Have some partners like New Holland Chips (NHC) and AgriWallet.
Training provided to members in chemical use and grading
Little experience with evaluation beyond capturing information
Very limited measuring and tracking of performance
Information system is very weak at
best.
0.6
Management Capacity
Have structured and transparent decision-making systems
Financial reports regularly audited and presented to members
Have qualified staff in key positions
Budget constraints – budgeting development activities.
Lack of HR system and policy. Share capital not fully paid up.
0.33
Operational Capacity
Critical positions are adequately filled, and attendance problems are rare
Communications to members are consistent and coordinated
Fully registered cooperative society organization.
Insufficient capacity in information management-lack of computerization
Lack physical office though land has been identified for construction of the building.
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection but have a problem with inconsistent seed supply.
Have a link to external extension service provider through partnership
Actively links input suppliers to members
Inadequate support in crop protection. No on farm hygiene training No value addition
0.36
Productivity and Financial Performance
Good farmer payment rates (83.3%)
High sales turnover
Low profit margin due unreliable rainfall so irrigation used sometimes.
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.44
2.8.4 KILIMO HIFADHI SAVINGS AND CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
Background of cooperative
87
Location: DO’s compound, Mairo Nane, Umande Ward, Laikipia County Registered: Jun. 2017 Operational date: 10th March 2017 Members: Registered members then 67, currently 67, active 44 (by gender 24-male, 20-women, 0-
youth) Production: Peak, over 3 tons per season, low season 1 ton. All produce sold to Individual Buyer (no
particular one) Share capital: Kshs. 250,000 Turn-over: Over Kshs. 120,000 per year Other activities: Extension Services, Farmer Training, Collective Sales. Staffing: No Paid Staff. Strategic plan: No Written Strategic Plan. Table 2: Assessment results for Kilimo Hifadhi cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Chairman and executive have good vision for the group.
Roles clearly specified and discharged.
Need for clear mission statement, goals with time frame and strategic plan.
Members need to be enlightened on the mission and goals.
Leadership not drawn from wide range of skills and youth not well represented.
Low member mobilization and sporadic meetings with inconsistent
turn-out.
0.33
Adaptive Capacity Have strong formal partnerships e.g. County Government and Agrimek
Performance measured by member contributions.
No strategic plan Inconsistent member involvement-
mainly during the AGM and SGMs Limited performance reviews
0.6
Management
Capacity
Have a chairman, secretary and
treasurer tasked with management.
Financial reports regularly updated and presented to members
The chairman is not proactive in
member mobilization. Lack of HR system and policy Participation is voluntary, and
members have little obligatory commitment.
0.33
Operational Capacity
Well documented operational procedures
Have good member communication strategy- reaches most of the members.
Insufficient capacity in information management-lack of computerization.
Have strong asset base Manual systems, no computers,
inadequate access to power supply.
0.2
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Established a input store for farmers
Have knowledge of produce sorting and grading.
Very reliable extension service offered to members
Adequate skills or support in crop protection and conservation.
Have a narrow membership base for produce collection
Low produce intake during dry periods Poor unreliable marketing links No produce testing or value addition No cold storage facilities
0.45
Productivity and Financial Performance
High sales turnover Low produce losses due to
rejection
Low profit margin Inadequate utilization of installed
production capacity.
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.38
2.9 MACHAKOS COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS BY SBO
88
2.9.1 KAANI FRUIT GROWERS FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of cooperative
Location: Kathiani Sub County, Machakos County Registered: December 2013 Operational date: 2016 Members: Registered members then, 130, currently 130, and active 130 (by gender –male-32,
women-98, youth) Production: Peak, over 45000pcs of mangoes tons per year, low 39000. All produce sold to brokers Share capital: Membership is free Turn-over: Over Kshs. 195,000 per year Other activities: None Staffing:
Strategic plan: No written strategic plan Table 2: Assessment results for Kaani fruit grower’s cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Has a clear vision Meetings held regularly
No gender balance in the board 0.17
Adaptive Capacity Frequent trainings Strategic plan in place though
not written
No partnership with other stake holders
0.4
Management Capacity
Experienced chairman in cooperative issues
Lack human resource system Semi trained staff No computers Poor record keeping 0.33
Operational Capacity
Access to electricity Has a reliable dam
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Reasonable membership No infrastructure Inadequate extension services Low quality products No value addition 0.73
Productivity and
Financial Performance
Moderate farmer pays rates Low profits
Low sales turnover High rejection due to low quality
products 0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.41
2.9.2 MANGO VALUE CHAIN FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of cooperative
Location: Matungulu Sub County, Machakos County Registered: September 2016 Operational date: 2013 Members: Registered members then, 1350, currently 1300, active 1300 (by gender -male, women,
youth) Production: At member group level Share capital: Member group based
Turn-over: Member group based Other activities: Linking member groups to stake holders. Staffing: In the process of recruiting Strategic plan: 5-year strategic plan-(2016-2020) Table 2: Assessment results for Mango Value Chain cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Skilled directors Good in decision making
Meetings not held regularly 0
89
Adaptive Capacity Excellent adaptation of external changes like new varieties
Good strategic plan linked to the objectives
Good partnership with VERT group (Mango processing factory) and county government
Poor monitoring of farmer groups that compose the value chain association
0.2
Management Capacity
Good management skills Qualified contracted staff
Financial records not well kept No financial auditing reports 0.25
Operational Capacity
Well implemented cooperative functions
Well strategized communication system
No computers
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Knowledge on supply and marketing
Coordinated marketing channels
Inadequate infrastructure like cold storage rooms
No value addition 0.36
Productivity and Financial Performance
No records on sales and production volumes
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.24
2.9.3 MASII HORTICULTURAL FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of cooperative
Location: Mwala Sub County, Machakos County Registered: 22nd November 2016 Operational date: 2010 Members: Registered members then, 115, currently 115, and active 115 (by gender –male-80,
women-35, youth) Production: Peak, over 20000pcs per year, low season 12000. All produce sold to brokers Share capital: Kshs. 115000 Turn-over: Over Kshs. 60,000 per year Other activities: Own an agro vet shop Staffing: 9 permanent and 12 casual staff
Strategic plan: 5-year strategic plan-(2018-2020) Table 2: Assessment results for Masii horticultural farmers’ cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Mission statement is clear Gender balance in the board at 50%
males and females
Hold regular meetings Clear written rules and responsibilities Manager is experienced (retired MOA
staff)
Youth membership is low Strategies not very clear
0
Adaptive Capacity Strategic plan in place Collaboration with another stake hold
e.g. UoN Hold regular trainings Free from loans and debts
Financial records not well documented
Decision making is normally done by the board
0
Management Capacity
Experienced manager Capacity to access loans and credit
Lack of human resource systems
Financial reports not audited
0.08
90
Operational Capacity
Adequate space for buildings and facilities
All staff positions are filled Registered with a certificate
Accounts, records and database are manual
No audited reports
0.2
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Link with MOA extension staff Own an agro vet shop
No value addition 0.27
Productivity and Financial Performance
Payments done in time No liabilities Own several assets
Profit margin is low 0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.11
2.9.4 KASINGA MUNG’ALA FARMERS ASSOCIATION FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of cooperative
Location: Machakos Sub County, Machakos County Registered: 18-03-2013
Operational date: 2005 Members: Registered members then, 45 currently 40, active 22 (by gender –male-10, women-12,
youth-0) Production: Data not available Share capital: Data not available Turn-over: Data not available Other activities: Green house Staffing: Members carry out their activities Strategic plan: In place but period not stated Table 2: Assessment results for Kasinga Mung’ala Farmers Association cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Board roles are clearly stated Lack clear mission and vision statements
Majority are aged people No youthful members
0.5
Adaptive Capacity Clear partnership with Machakos
county government Members involved in all activities
Lack of strong partnerships
Low membership
0.6
Management Capacity
Experienced chairman Trained staff on horticulture
No HR system for recruitment Poor financial reports No audited reports
0.92
Operational Capacity
Skilled board of directors No computers Lack of office facilities Poor information dissemination
0.6
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Well managed supply system though at individual farmer level
Lack of cold storage facility Inadequate water supply No value addition
Low prices offered by brokers Low production volumes and
productivity Poor access to market due to low
volumes
0.64
Productivity and Financial Performance
Fair production performance Post-harvest losses Low profit margins
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.65
91
2.10 MAKUENI COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS
2.10.1 KWA KYAI RURAL SACCO LTD
Background of cooperative
Location: Kikumbulyu south ward, Kibwezi west Sub County, Makueni County
Registered: 2002 Operational date: Since 2002 it remained inactive until 2017 when it became active Members: Registered members then, 250, currently 50 are active and certified by global gap, while 100
are active but undergoing the process of global gap certification (by gender, male-40%, women-60%, youth-35%)
Production: Peak, over 15 tons per week (assorted enterprise Tomatoes, Mangoes, Ravaya, Capsicum, Okra, Brinjals, Watermelon, Babycorn, Kales, Green Maize and Spinach) low season 4tons per week. Dried Tomatoes and Mangoes exported to Netherlands while most fresh produce sold to the local market in the county and some parts of the country
Share capital: Kshs150, 000 Turn-over: Over Kshs. 40 million per year
Other activities: Hire of grading shade, storage and hall for trainings, hired crop protection spraying services Staffing: 2 permanent and 18 casual staff/Operators Strategic plan: 5-year strategic plan-(2016-2020) Assessment results for Kwa Kyai Rural SACCO Ltd
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have clearly articulated mission and
vision, the members are familiar with Roles clearly specified and discharged
No service charters.
0
Adaptive Capacity Have strong network of partners/collaborators e.g. Makueni County Government, SNV, HCD, UoN, Swiss conduct, FAO, Dondore-Kenya ltd (Agriwallet), USAID-KARLO
Low operational capital Poor irrigation infrastructure Lack of electricity Inadequate equipment and
storage
0
Management
Capacity
Have a good management team led by
a coordinator Financial reports annually audited and
presented to members
No Budget Reviews
No performance reviews Lack of Appraisal and HR policy
0
Operational Capacity
High retention level of staff Building and infrastructure not to standard
Solar power system in use not well tapped therefore not reliable
0.2
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection (250)
Have diversified enterprises Have a shed for produce sorting and
grading Have a good access to export Market Have access to a cold storage Processed products have a higher
shelf life
In adequate irrigation water Very limited extension service
offered to members Inadequate skills or support in
crop protection and conservation
Inadequate cold storage facilities
0.27
Productivity and Financial Performance
The profit margins are good Over 4%. There are less liabilities
There is low utilization of capacity
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.09
2.10.2 KITHONI FARMERS SELF HELP GROUP
92
Background of group
Location: Kikumini/Muvau ward, Makueni Sub County, Makueni County Registered: 2012 Operational date: 2012 Members: Registered members then, 130, currently 74 are active (by gender, male-33, women-41,
youth-15) Production: Peak, over 80,000 pcs per season, about 30,000 pcs for export while 50,000 for local market
Share capital: Kshs200,000 (through table banking) Turn-over: Ksh 500,000 Other activities: promotion of conservation agriculture farming. Staffing: group members working in individual farms Strategic plan: 5-6-year strategic plan Assessment results for Kithoni Farmers Self Help group
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Claim to have a mission
Mission is not documented The goals are verbally communicated to
members, no evidence to prove Beliefs and values not documented
0.08
Adaptive Capacity Have a well-developed strategic plan
Performance partially measured)
Strategic plan not documented No interval set for performance review
0.2
Management
Capacity
The chairman takes the
responsibilities of the manager, trustee and office custodian
No oversight of Budget, no budget review.
No periodic performance reviews No auditing done
0.08
Operational Capacity
High staff retention rate
No evidence on communication strategy No computers, lack of electricity Inadequate working space/office space
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a good membership base because of the shared beliefs
Sale their produce well including targeting the export market
Sale produce individually Very limited extension service offered to
members Inadequate skills or support in crop
protection and conservation Challenges with value addition Inadequate cold storage facilities
0.27
Productivity and Financial
Performance
Low market prices Low profit margin Reduced equity
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.21
2.10.3 MAKUENI COUNTY FRUIT PROCESSORS
Background of cooperative
Location: Wote/Nziu ward, Makueni Sub County, Makueni County Registered: Started in 2008 as a self-help group with 43 members, but registered in
2010 as Makueni county fruit processors
93
Operational date: 2010 Members: Registered members are1500, 1000 are active and targets 6000 (by gender, male-55%,
women-45%, youth-30%) Production: Peak, over 500 tons per month, low season 2 tons. The produce targets both the export
market, and the local market which include Kalamba fruit processors and other parts of the country
Share capital: Kshs. 5million Turn-over: Over Kshs. 12 million per year Other activities: Input store (Agro vet). Staffing: 2 permanent staff and service providers linked to farmers for spraying pay at a fee Strategic plan: 5-year strategic plan
Table 2: Assessment results for Makueni county fruit processors
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have clearly documented, well-articulated, displayed mission and vision
Board well organized with gender representation
AGMs and elections held regularly
The manager is about one month old Board still lacks a wide range of
skills
0
Adaptive Capacity
Have a well-developed strategic plan which enshrines business investment and marketing plan
Have strong network of partners e.g Makueni County Government, SNV, RTI, ADS, Agri-Wallet Performance recorded and periodically reviewed
Have elaborate farmers training programs, including FM radio trainings.
Some Partnerships not formalized Limited member involvement-
mainly during the AGM and SGMs There is minimal mechanization
0
Management Capacity
The management works as a team Financial reports regularly audited and
presented to members Have 2qualified staff in key positions
Budget constraints – budgeting for development activities.
Lack of HR training system and policy
0
Operational Capacity
Have high staff retention Have computers for accounts and record
keeping Adequate access to power supply
Insufficient skills and capacity in information management
Lack of extension staff
0
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection, 5 collection centres
Established a centralized input store for farmers to access and buy quality inputs
Have a shed for produce sorting and grading in every collection centre
Have access to a charcoal cold storage facility in every collection centre
Low produce intake during dry periods
Very limited extension service offered to members
Inadequate skills or poor support in crop protection and conservation
Inadequate produce grading at some produce collection centres
Challenges with value addition Inadequate cold storage facilities
0.27
Productivity and Financial Performance
High capacity utilization and good net profit margin >4%
Produce losses due to rejection. i.e.21-40%
Low inventory turnover
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.05
2.10.4 MAKIYIKA MANGO GROWERS AND PROCESSORS
Background of cooperative
94
Location: Makueni Sub County, Makueni County Registered: 2006 Operational date: 2006 Members: Registered members then, 158, currently they are only 80, active 66 (by gender –male-44,
women-22, 1-youth) Production: No records to show
Share capital: no records Turn-over: No records Other activities: N/A. Staffing: No permanent staff only 9 committee members Strategic plan: No strategic plan
Table 2: Assessment results for Makiyika Mango growers and processors
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have a vision and mission in mind Have beliefs and values which bind
members
Mission is not well documented and communicated widely to members.
There is no structure, a 9-committee member and 2 trustees play the various roles
Low member mobilization
0.83
Adaptive Capacity
Have an idea of each farmer to have not less than 30 mango trees as a strategy to increase production
Have a good network of partners e.g. Makueni County Government, KATY exporters, MESPT
Members involved in meetings and price negotiations
Not documented strategic plan Limited member involvement- mainly
during the AGM No documented MOU’s with Partners
0.8
Management Capacity
Have a dedicated executive committee member who act as the driving force
They have a bank account where money from sales is deposited
Decisions are made in a meeting attended by all and ready out to all members
They have no Budget. Lack of HR system and policy
0.75
Operational Capacity
Members get communication from the committee through SMS.
Insufficient capacity in information management-lack of computerization
Lack of documented operational procedures
0.6
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
Some of their produce is destined for export
Have one machine for juice extraction
Low produce intake during dry periods Inadequate skills or support in crop
protection and conservation Challenges with value addition
0.64
Productivity and Financial Performance
They sell their produce No records to show profit or losses 0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.72
95
2.11 MERU COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS
2.11.1 MERU COUNTY BANANA COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of cooperative
Location: Offices: Ndarene town, Abogeta E. ward, Imenti south Sub County, Factory site: Baranga sub location, about 1km from Ndarene, S. Imenti s/county, Meru
County. Registered: Year 2014 Operational Date: Production of Banana crop has been ongoing long before the cooperative was registered.
But the processing plant is still under construction Members: The society comprises of 22 groups spread across the county.
Registered members. 4000 (gender on 50:50 basis) Current active members. 670
Production: Individual groups does marketing of their produce at their respective collection centers to
buyers who come with Lorries. Actual processing or production of value-added products has not commenced.
Peak production. 20 Tones/week/group Low season. 10 Tones/week/group (may/October)
(NB: Captured are what the respective groups are able to market or deliver to the collection centers per week)
Share Capital: Ksh. 700,000 Turnover: Ksh.300 Million (Estimated) Other activities: None Staffing: 1 manager and 1 casual. (Both are paid on token basis) Strategic plan: 5year strategic plan-2018 -2022
Table 2: Assessment results for Meru County Banana Cooperatives
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/ Challenges Capacity
score
Leadership Have clearly articulated Mission & Vision
Board well composed in terms of gender. The groups meet regularly
Members very much involved, and decisions are made at annual delegates conference which are then
cascaded down to the various groups
No meeting held for the larger society in 2018 and no plans for AGM
Weak manager requiring a lot of guidance. should be recruited competitively
0.08
Adaptive
Capacity
Have a well thought out strategic plan Strong membership involvement at
group level where they do marketing of their produce.
Partnerships at formative level, in discussion with Meru county investment & development committee (MCIDC)
Evaluation and organizational learning weak at coop level because greater part of activities is still at group level.
0.4
Management
capacity
Operational plans and procedures exist at group level.
Decision making done at annual delegates conference then cascaded down to group level
Coop at formative stage, thus still no budget and funds to manage
Because of the above, the staff base is weak and not qualified
No HR system and policy.
0.33
Operational
Capacity
Asset base stands at 20M.Have acquired new premises for putting up the building and office space.
The cooperative legally registered
Poor computerized system. Own 1 computer
Low staffing level & Manager not
experienced enough. Because the society is young without much operations.
0
96
Supply,
processing
and Marketing
Wide membership base for produce availability
Have collection centers and identified marketer groups
Quick payment period after delivery of produce
Extension services available from county government
Wide hectare for production exists
Society has not reached the level to assist in input supplies, crop development
Infrastructure development has just
begun Value addition products identified,
and wine production tried manually & expected to pick up once the infrastructure is complete
0.36
Productivity and
Financial
Performance
Good farmer payment rates Low production loses for individual
farmer The produce delivered directly to the
collection centers
Low capital structure 0
Average Capacity and performance score /Index 0.24
2.11.2 MERU FRIENDS SACCO
Background of Cooperative Location: Maua Ward, Igembe South sub -county, Meru County Contacts: Address: P.O Box 764 -60600, MAUA MERU –KENYA. Office line 0703259135 /0724146070.
Email: [email protected]. Website: www.merufriendssacco.co.ke Registered: January 2016 Operational Date: July 2017 Members:
Registered members-239 (174M & 65 F) out of which 50 members are Youth. Current Members -293 Active -120
Production: The society is currently only able to produce Sweet potato bread (50 crates /day) and
Doughnuts (20 packets/day) at peak season and 24 crate/day of bread & 40 packets of Doughnuts at low season. This is out of the 11 value added products it has identified and in plan with the Kebbs permit.
Share Capital: Ksh. 300,000. From members shares, savings and Registration. Turn- over: Over Kshs.1,500,000 per year. Other Activities: None Staffing: 9 Permanent and 5 casual staff Strategic plan: 1-year strategic plan -2018 -2019. Wants to introduce 5 products (scones, burns, and
queen cakes) by end of November 2018. Table 2: Assessment results for Meru Friends Sacco Cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/ Challenges Capacity score
Leadership Have clearly articulated the Mission, vision, core values & objectives and put in a
brochure form (copy attached) Board properly constituted and elected
representatives have assumed office The acting manager who is the
cooperatives accountant is well versed with the society operations and has sound financial judgement
The strategic plan doesn’t come out clearly
The Board is still new elected barely 2 months ago
0
Adaptive Capacity
Performance records are well kept and reviewed periodically
Have strong link with county government
and National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) who are their initiator.
Strategic plan not well developed. can site but not documented
Is in early stages of forming partnerships & collaboration
0
Management capacity
Staff qualified in key positions and competitively sourced
Currently the society has no manager who left for greener
0
97
Though in acting capacity, the manager is experienced in the operations of the society
Financial operations streamlined and seeks board involvement
pastures, but the position has been advertised
The share capital is low and have yet to engage other
financial institutions for loans
Operational Capacity
Have adequate space and power supply for operations but hopes to acquire own property
Staff positions filled/or advertised to be filled & have right qualifications
Legally registered & tax compliant
Have weak & tricky asset base. The office and factory operate from rented property
Has 1 computer operated by secretary but plans to introduce more.
0
Supply,
processing and Marketing
Have adequate membership base & bulking
sites for produce supply Involved in input sourcing & supply for
farmer, in particular the vines. Have 11 products in plan for value addition Linked to MOA for extension and crop
development services
Competition from other
suppliers of related products and needs intervention in transportation for supply
Lacks infrastructure particularly own building
0.27
Productivity and Financial Performance
Low production losses to the individual farmer
Good sales turnover Low produce losses
Low asset base Low productivity compared
with installed capacity. Unable to venture into the market
strongly because of lack of transport for supply
0
Average Capacity And performance score /Index 0.05
2.11.3 MERU POTATO PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
Background of cooperative
Location: Abothuguchi ward, Imenti Sub County, Meru County Registered: 4th Nov 2013 Operational date: launched 18th Sep 2015 Members: Registered members 421, currently 421, active 300 (by gender –male 305, women 116,
youth 0) Production: N/A. Got losses after buying a bad hybrid. Over per day N/A, low season N/A tons. All
produce sold to local store Buyers. Share capital: Kshs. 0.3 million Turn-over: N/A Other activities: none Staffing: no staff hired
Strategic plan: 2 years strategic plan-(2018-2019) Table 2: Assessment results for Meru potato processing cooperative society limited
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have clearly articulated mission and vision
Roles clearly specified and
discharged Members of board are well
represented by gender and age Have shared beliefs and values
aligned with organizational purpose and constituent norms.
Have clear goals with a common purpose
Board members is involved and committed in levels of planning and management.
Mission needs to be communicated widely to members.
Board still lack a wide range of skills
and women Low member mobilization Poor involvement of members on
decision making and opinions No skilled manager to learn
operations of the cooperative done by the executive.
0
98
Adaptive Capacity Have a well-developed strategic plan
Have strong network of partner’s e.g. AGRA, UPL India, potato council
growers Africa KAPAP, Meru County. The board of management keep
records and data have plans to strengthen the organization in two years’ time
Partnerships not formalized Limited member involvement-
mainly during the AGM and SGMs Lack records to analyze the
organization Lack clear performance evaluation
tool
0
Management Capacity.
Financial reports annually audited and presented to members
Have clear realistic goals and targets well documented.
Members of the board oversees the
coop financial operations and management
They have good relationship with banks and able to secure loans
Budget constraints – budgeting development activities.
They are not paying annual subscriptions
Lack systems for reporting on
control Have huge loan straining to pay
which has attracted more interest Lack of HR system and policies Lack clear communication
dissemination
0.42
Operational Capacity
Have strong asset base Good accessibility of the facility
centrally situated Cooperative is legally registered and
incorporation documents in order Expansive area is adequate for the
offices and other factory facilities
Lack computers and tracking systems
They have not hired staff Lack of documented operational
procedures Lack adequate power backup supply Inadequate member communication
strategy- need to be reached most of the members
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
Established input store for farmers On farm trainings done to members
Coop supplied inputs for its members to begin with.
Over 30 acres to provide produce for the coop
Very limited extension service offered to members by ministry of agriculture
Inadequate skills or support in crop
protection and conservation Challenges with value addition Lacking farm mechanization Lack cold storage structures and
standby generators and also inadequate storage
0.64
Productivity and Financial Performance
Have increased their shares They have more assets over
liabilities
No collective marketing Have no stock and inventory Operating on losses
They have unpaid debts/liabilities
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.41
2.11.4 TIMAU POTATOES GROWERS FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED.
Background of cooperative
Location: Buuri Sub County, Timau ward, Timau town Meru County Registered: February 2018
Operational date: 2018 not yet established Members: Registered members then, 1200, currently 1300, active 300 {unable to specify gender}. Production: Peak, N/A, low season N/A. All produce sold to local traders and brokers Share capital: Kshs. 0.1 million Turn-over: N/A –have not done collective marketing Other activities: None Staffing: None Strategic plan: None
99
Table 2: Assessment results for Timau potatoes growers’ farmers’ cooperative society ltd
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Roles clearly specified and discharged
AGMs held regularly Have shared beliefs and
values.
Have no clear mission and vision Mission needs to be communicated widely
to members. Board still lack a wide range of skills and
women and youth not well represented. Lack strategy and goals not documented Interim board in operation no elections
held No manager hired The cooperative is on initial stages of
formation.
0.42
Adaptive Capacity Have strong network of partners e.g. Techno Serve, Bayer chemicals, Syngenta, Twiga foods real IPM organic. Meru friends Sacco, Meru County.
Performance recorded and periodically reviewed
Have tele-care for member training and information
sharing
Partnerships not formalized Limited member involvement- mainly
during the AGM and SGMs They lack developed strategic plan
0.8
Management Capacity
have financial access to banks and Sacco’s
Operation planning underway
Have not employed a manager
No set goals Budget constraints – budgeting
development activities. Inadequate use of financial information-
audited reports Lack of HR system and policy
0.5
Operational
Capacity
Have strong asset base
The cooperative is legally registered with operating documents
Lack capacity in information
management-lack of computerization Lack of documented operational
procedures Inadequate member communication
strategy- need to be reached most of the members
Lack office but have land to construct
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Over 25% Farm mechanization is done
Have over 30 acres to do farming
On farm training are done
Farmers are selling their produce to
brokers and stores Very limited extension service offered to
members Inadequate skills or support in crop
protection and conservation Challenges with value addition Inadequate cold storage facilities
0.18
Productivity and Financial Performance
Members have accumulated share
Have assets and no liabilities
Lack collective marketing. 0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.46
2.12 NAKURU COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS BY SBO
2.12.1 MAU NAROK RURAL FARMERS SACCO SOCIETY LTD
Background of cooperative
100
Location: Njoro Sub County, Nakuru County Registered: Year 2012 Operational Date: 17/04/2012 Members: 15 registered members then, 400, currently, active 300 Production: Peak, over 200 tons per month, low season 100 tons. All produce sold to brokers Share capital: Kshs 0.734 Million
Turn over: Ksh 0.5 Million Other activities: Input store available, hire lorry for transport Staffing: 6 permanent and 1 casual staff Strategic plan: Five-year strategic plan. (2016-2020) Table 2: Assessment results for Mau Narok Rural Farmers SACCO Society LTD
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity
Score
Leadership Have clearly articulated mission and vision.
Have set goals that the organization aims to achieve
All membership groups represented in the board with regular well-planned meetings
AGM and elections held regularly Roles clearly specified and discharged
Goals lack time frame for measuring attainment
Some of members are inactive
0
Adaptive capacity Well-developed Strategic plan in place Performance measured, and progress
tracked in multiple ways on regular basis
Performance recorded in information system and periodically reviewed.
Have strong network of partners e.g. techno serve, Equity bank and Sereni fries.
The strategic plan not fully ready to be acted upon
Some members not
committed during implementation of the cooperative planned activities.
0
Management
Capacity
Have an experienced manager in cooperative management
Financial reports regularly audited by government auditor and presented to
members Have qualified staff in key positions
Lack of human resource system and policy
0
Operational Capacity Have well computerized system Group legally registered.
Secretary post vacant Rented office space
0
Supply, Processing
and Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
Established an input store for farmers. Employs an agronomist on casual basis.
Do not have a cold storage facility.
Limited use of mechanization
Not doing any value addition
0.36
Productivity and
financial performance
Low profit margins as a result of low yields.
Produce loss due to poor storage structure.
0
Average Capacity and Performance score/ index 0.17
2.12.2 NEW MOLO FARMERS SACCO SOCIETY LTD
Background of cooperative Location: MOLO Sub County, Nakuru County Registered: Year 2013 Operational Date:
Members: 55 registered members then, 200, currently, active 120 Production: Peak, over 17.6 tons per month, low season 8.8 tons. All produce sold to brokers Share capital: Kshs 0.25 Million
101
Turn over: Ksh 0.5 Million Other activities: Store available, hire lorry for transport Staffing: 5 permanent AND 1 casual staff (Watchman). Strategic plan: No strategic plan Table 2: Assessment results for NEW MOLO FARMERS SACCO Society LTD
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity
Score
Leadership Mission well written and printed on the wall
Board membership has mixed expertise and experience in various fields
Chairman takes the role of manager
Goals lack time frame for measuring attainment
. Roles of boards and management not clearly specified and discharged
Roles of board unclear No qualified manager but acting
chairman.
0.25
Adaptive capacity Hold meetings regularly every month.
Have partnership with Bayer crop science, BAC and NPCK.
No strategic plan Very limited measurement and
tracking of performance and progress.
0.6
Management Capacity Staff able to carry duties with minimal supervision
Have no debts from
financiers.
No formal systems to capture and document internal knowledge
No annual budget
0.08
Operational Capacity Group registered as a cooperative.
Have a ware house for potato storage
Some posts are not occupied Limited use of computers in day to day
activity
0.4
Supply, Processing and
Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
Established an input store for farmers.
Large acreage Members trained in
production.
Lack of cold storage facility Doesn’t supply farm inputs Low use of mechanization
0.55
Productivity and
financial performance
0
Average Capacity and Performance score/ index 0.38
2.12.3 STAR LITE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
Background of cooperative Location: Kuresoi North Sub County, Nakuru County Registered: Year 2008 Operational Date:
Members: Registered members 180 (90 male and 90 female). Serve other farmers who are not registered (500 famers in total)
Production: Peak, over 17 tons per DAY, low season 8 tons/ DAY. All produce sold to brokers Share capital: information not disclosed Turn over: Other activities: Input store available, hire lorry for transport Staffing: 5 permanent AND 3 casual staff Strategic plan: Not yet developed. Table 2: Assessment Results for STAR LITE COOPERATIVE Society LTD
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
102
Leadership Have clearly articulated mission and vision.
Have set goals that the organization aims to achieve
All membership groups represented in the board with regular well-planned meetings
AGM and elections held regularly Roles clearly specified and discharged
by various committees. Have a competent manager who is a
graduate
Goals lack time frame for measuring attainment
Members scattered
over wide area.
0
Adaptive capacity Well-developed Strategic plan in place Performance measured, and progress
tracked in multiple ways on regular basis
Performance recorded in information system and periodically reviewed.
Targets reviewed during AGM
The strategic plan not fully ready to be acted
upon Have weak
partnerships and alliances
0.2
Management Capacity Have an experienced manager in cooperative management
Financial reports regularly audited by government auditor and presented to members
Have qualified staff in key positions
Weak system in place for reporting on controls
0.08
Operational Capacity Reporting system computer based Registered as a cooperative and tax
compliant Electricity available
Rely on rental premises
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce collection
Extension services provided by ministry of agriculture
Have no input store in place for their members
Low acreage of potato since clean seed production is seasonal
Limited farm mechanization
Lack of cold storage facility for potato produce
No value addition.
0.73
Productivity and financial performance
Horticultural activities currently being done at individual level.
0
Average Capacity and Performance score/ index 0.2
2.12.4 SUBUKIA AVOCADO FARMERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
Background of cooperative Location: Subukia Sub County, Nakuru County Registered: Year 2017 Operational Date: Members: Registered members 67 Production: All produce sold locally to farmers in the vicinity Share capital: no records
Turn over: No records Other activities: Individual members raise other own seedlings Staffing: Group is very young Strategic plan: Not yet developed. Table 2: Assessment Results for SUBUKIA AVOCADO FARMERS COOPERATIVE Society LTD
103
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Seedlings produced are certified by HCD.
Regular group meetings on monthly basis
Board of management in place.
No written mission statements. Goals lack clarity and time frames Members divided over activity of
producing avocado and zero grazing
No strategic plan
0.17
Adaptive capacity Group members meeting Do not have written strategic plan No partnerships /alliances
0.4
Management Capacity have structures for decision making
have set targets Regular monthly meetings. ability to employ casual
laborers
No trained manger Targets nonexistent and no goals No annual budgets
0.5
Operational Capacity The organization is registered as a cooperative.
Communication to members
generally communicated
Some staff positions are not filled. The organization has no computers The group relies on rented house
at Ksh 6000 per month.
0.4
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Group able to access extension services from County Government
Cooperative dealing with seedlings business only.
Group does not supply members with inputs
Low hacterage by group Crop protection challenge
0.45
Productivity and financial performance
The group is at initial stages of avocado seedlings production.
0
Average Capacity and Performance score/ index 0.38
2.13 NYANDARUA COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS BY SBO
2.13.1 MIRANGINE GREEN SILVER FARMERS’ COOPERAT IVE SOCIETY.
Background of the Cooperative
Location: Olkalou Sub-County, Nyandarua County
Registered: 6th July 2016
Operational Date: 13th April 2017
Membership: Initial: 37 Current: 132 (Male= 84, F=42) Active members- 132
Production: Peak season: 100 Tons/4month seasons of Potato produce Low season: 48.56
Tons/4month season (All produce sold to Sereni Fries Ltd Company
Share Capital: (Data not available)
Turn-Over: (Data not available)
Other Activities:
Staffing: There is no staff for day to day management of the cooperative
Strategic Plan: The cooperative is yet to develop one, though they are aware of the need for one
Table 2. Assessment Results for Mirangine Green Silver Farmers’ Cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity
Score
Leadership Roles clearly specified and discharged
The committee lack a wide range of skills 0.17
Adaptive Capacity The cooperative has a strong network of partners eg Tower Sacco Ltd,
County Government
With the exception of Serene Fries, the other partnerships have not been formalized 0.2
104
Department of Agriculture Charvi Investment, Agrico E.A Serene Fries Ltd Efforts to record and review
performance were evident, though the cooperative is quite new
Management Capacity A four-member committee in place Lacks HR system and policy 0.83
Operational Capacity Necessary physical infrastructure in place
Lacks staff capacity 0.6
Supply, Processing and
Marketing
Coop is active in sourcing extension and input supply
services for members Has a sizable membership base for
production
Committee managing the cooperative lacks capacity
0.27
Productivity and
Financial Performance
Reliable market channels in place Coop operating below capacity 0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.41
2.13.2 SOKO MPYA FARMERS ’ COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of the Cooperative Location: Kinangop Sub-County, Nyandarua County Registration: Registered in 1999 as Self-Help Group and then as cooperative in 2016 Operational Date: The group is yet to start operating as a cooperative Members: Initial membership: 86 (M=50 F=36) Current 75, Active members 50 Production: Aggregated production has not started. Share Capital: Details not available
Turn-Over: Details not available The main activities: Involved in individual horticultural production and marketing of a variety of horticultural
produce on small scale. Other Activities: Table banking and Water selling Staffing: There is no staff for day to day management of the cooperative Strategic Plan: The Strategic Plan is in place Assessment Results for Soko Mpya Farmers’ Cooperative Society Cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Have a clearly articulated mission and vision
Goals have no specific time frame.
Low member mobilization 0
Adaptive Capacity Have a well-developed strategic plan.
County Government is a key partner
Strategic plan not fully internalized
0.4
Management Capacity Currently not operational 0.25
Operational Capacity Currently not operational 0.2
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Currently not operational 0.45
Productivity and Financial Performance
Currently not operational 0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.26
2.13.3 OLERIONDO HORTICULTURAL ROADSIDE MARKET SELF HELD GROUP.
Background of the Self-Help Group
Location: Olkalou Sub-County- Kaibaga Ward, Nyandarua County
Registered: 20/01/2011 Operational Date: 20/01/2011 Members: Initial membership- 72, Current -46, Active members -32(M:12 F:18)
105
Production: Members involved in small scale horticultural production and produce sold on individual basis by the road side. No records were available.
Share Capital: Details not available Turn-Over: Details not available Other Activities: Table banking Staffing: There was no staff in place
Strategic Plan: The group has no strategic plan in place. Assessment Results for Oleriondo Horticultural Roadside Market Self Held Group.
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Committed group leadership in place
No clear mission and vision 0.83
Adaptive Capacity County Government is a key partner
1
Management Capacity The necessary physical infrastructure, i.e. office space and stalls in place
1
Operational Capacity 0
Supply, Processing and
Marketing
0.55
Productivity and Financial
Performance
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.76
2.13.4 OL-ARWAGWI FARMERS’ COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of the Cooperative
Location: Kinangop Sub-County, Nyandarua County
Registered: 6th fee 1964 Operational Date: Not yet on horticultural crop Members: Current membership: 367 (M=164 F=203) Production: Members involved in small scale horticultural production and produce sold on individual
basis. No records were available to determine the production levels. Share Capital: Details not available Turn-Over: Details not available Other Activities: Milk marketing Staffing: There was no management staff in place Strategic Plan: No strategic plan was in place; however, the coop officials said that they are in the process
of preparing the plan.
Assessment Results for Ol-Arwagwi Farmers’ Cooperative Society
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Committed group leadership in place
No clear mission and vision 0.33
Adaptive Capacity County Government is a key
partner
0.4
Management Capacity 0.82
Operational Capacity 0.2
Supply, Processing and Marketing
0
Productivity and Financial Performance
0
Average Capacity and Performance Score/Index 0.35
2.14 TRANSZOIA COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS BY SBO
2.14.1 SIUNA GROWERS CBO
106
Background of cooperative Location: Saboti Sub County, Matisi Ward, Grassland Location Siuna Village Registered: 1st April 2007 Operational date: 1st April 2007 Members: Registered members then, 44, currently 38, active 25 (M 13, F 13, YM 3, YF 4)
Production: Peak, over 42 tons (840 bunches)/month, low season 21 (420 bunches) Bananas. All produce sold to wholesale market and buyers from Local schools, Kitale, Lodwar and Eldoret.
Share capital: Kshs. 407,500 Turn-Over: Kshs. 350,000 per year Other activities: Village Savings and Loaning (Table Banking), Production of Avocados and Tissue Culture
Nursey. Staffing: 1(Mentor) Strategic plan: 3-year strategic plan-(2012-2013) (2016-2019)
Assessment results
Capacity Area
Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity
score
Leadership Have clearly articulated mission and vision
Roles clearly specified and discharged
AGMs and elections held regularly
Coherent long-term strategy
Have a common purpose for livelihood
improvement
leadership ability to motivate members
The group has Mentorship in Succession
Programme
Low member mobilization
0
Adaptive
Capacity
Have well developed strategic plan
Have a strong network of partners e.g KALRO,
SCCVI, Schools and MOA,
Performance recorded and periodically
reviewed
Have a reporting format for the various
departments
Partnerships not formalized
0
Management
capacity
Have a strong management in the CBO
Financial reports regularly presented to
members
CBO management have diverse skills form
various fields
Inadequate audited reports
due to inadequate turnover
Lack of HR system and
policy
Low scale of operation
inadequate to hire a
permanent staff 0.08
Operational
capacity
Strong Capacity to coordinate different cluster
groups
Able to mobilize adequate resources through
table banking
fairly good documentation of operation
procedures
can utilize simple communication procedures
e.g. SMS & WhatsApp
Insufficient capacity in
information management –
lack of computerization
0.2
107
Supply,
processing
and
marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce
collection
Have a capacity for produce sorting, grading
and value addition for banana by the ripening
chambers
They organize on farm capacity building to
empower member on quality
Diverse range of stakeholder who offer
extension, financial and input services to
members
Low produce supply during
the dry season due to lack of
irrigation system
Inadequate produce
aggregation when there is
stiff competition for bananas
challenge of value addition
Inadequate storage facilities
0.27
Productivity
and financial
performance
Good production planning among all members
with clear targets on the quantity of bananas
produced per season
High sales during peak production period
Ability to access market due to close proximity
to the main highway ad Kitale wholesale
market
Low capital Base to upscale
investment
Low profit margin during and
competition during peak
production season
0
Average capacity and performance Score/Index 0.11
2.14.2 KILONGEI CBO
Background of Co-operative
Location: Saboti Sub-county, TransNzoia County (Cheptilil Centre, Saboti Location, Saboti ward). Registered: 2009 (as CBO). Operational date: 2009 Members: Registered members then, 80, currently active 62 {F =27, M =35} Production: Peak, over 200 tons French beans, snow peas and sugar snaps per week, low season 90 tons
per week. All produce sold to VegPro Company. Share capital: files not accessible. Turn-over: files not accessible. Other activities: Maize and dairy production. Staffing: 4 (contract) Strategic plan: 20-year strategic plan-(2009-2030).
Assessment results for Kilongei CBO
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/ challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Mission and vision well known to most
of the members.
Regular meetings are well planned.
Leadership ability to motivate
members.
Strategy lacks coherence.
Less than half of board
members lack influence
over day-to-day behavior.
0
Adaptive Capacity Strong relationship with relevant
entities e.g. government departments
and community agencies.
Lacks in plans to develop
information systems.
0
Operational
Capacity
Legally registered as CBO comprising
of 4 smaller groups.
Lacks office premises. 0.08
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Have wide membership base for
produce supply.
Have sheds for produce sorting and
grading.
Have on-farm trainings.
Low hectarage 0.2
Productivity and Financial Performance
High productivity.
High net profit margin.
Need to improve on
capital structure.
0.27
108
Average capacity and Performance Score/ Index 0.19
Summary of Kilongei CBO The CBO has wide membership well distributed across ward. Membership is composed of youths, middle aged and elderly women and men. It has strong leadership which appears to have potential of taking the CBO to another level if given relevant assistance. It covers a large catchment endowed with good soils and cool climate. The main challenge is water. Piping system for water distribution in the region broke down and is yet to be repaired.
2.14.3 NYASASABA CBO
Background of cooperative Location: Endebess Sub County, Matumbei Ward, Kaibei Location, Salama Centre Registered: 2005 Operational date: January 2015 Members: Registered members then, 456, currently 400, active 400 (M 129, F 120, YM 98, YF 88, disable 32), 28 affiliated groups Production: Peak, over 1500 crates per week, low season 500 crates per week (Tomatoes). All produce
sold to designated whole sale markets Kisumu, Nairobi, Mombasa Kitale, Eldoret Share capital: KES 900,000
Turn-Over: Kshs. 18 million per year Other activities: Village Savings and Loaning (Table Banking), Production of Tomatoes Staffing: 1(Permanent staff on voluntary basis) Strategic plan: 5-year strategic plan-(2017-2022) Assessment Results
Capacity
Area
Strengths Weaknesses/challenges Capacity
score
Leadership Have clearly articulated mission and vision
Roles clearly specified and discharged
AGMs and elections held regularly
Coherent long-term strategy
Have a common purpose for livelihood
improvement
Leadership ability to motivate members
Ability to create partnerships and alliances with
stakeholders
Ability to Mobilization and motivate 28 affiliated
groups with a shared beliefs and values to
improve their livelihood through marketing of
tomatoes
Low resource mobilization
in affiliated groups
0
Adaptive
Capacity
Have well developed strategic plan
Have a strong network of partners e.g. SHEP,
SCCVI, Amref and MOA, seed companies,
agrochemical companies
Performance recorded and periodically reviewed
Community development Plan available
Partnerships not formalized
with some partners. No
MOUs
lack of a reporting format
for each department
0
Management
capacity
Have a strong management in the CBO
Financial reports regularly presented to members
CBO management have diverse skills form various
fields
Ability to keep away unscrupulous business
through a strong communication protocol
No evidence of financial
report audit
Lack of HR system and
policy
The structure of operation
is not very clear despite
huge volumes of produce
marketed
0.58
109
Operational
capacity
Strong Capacity to coordinate different affiliated
groups
Able to mobilize adequate resources through table
banking
Fairly good documentation of operation
procedures
Can utilize simple communication procedures e.g.
Notice board, SMS & WhatsApp
Insufficient capacity in
information management –
lack of computerization
0.2
Supply,
processing
and
marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce
collection and marketing
Have a capacity for on-farm produce sorting,
grading and value addition tomatoes.
Previous they had an input store which is no
longer active
They have put in measures to come up with a
standard tomato crate to reduce exploitation
They organize on farm capacity building to
empower member on quality
Diverse range of stakeholder who offer extension,
financial and input services to members
Low produce supply during
the long rains due to lack
fungal diseases and pests
Challenges of value
addition
Inadequate storage
facilities
0.36
Productivity
and financial
performance
Good production and farmer payment rates due to
access to better markets
High sales turnover
Low profit margins when
there is tomato glut
Occasional crop loss due to
hail storms and excess rain
0
Average capacity and performance Score/Index 0.23
2.14.4 SITATU FRESH FARMERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD
Background of Co-operative
Location: Cherangani Sub County, Trans Nzoia County Registered: 2014 Operational date: 2014 Members: Registered members then, 326, Current active members, 100 {F 40, M 60} Production: Milk; Peak over 20,000 litres per month. All milk sold to different companies. Currently there
is no horticultural crop (esp. export crops) in the field. Share capital: Files not accessible. Turn-over: Files not accessible. Other activities: Individual members have bananas, avocados, potatoes and vegetables apart from maize.
Staffing: 4 (Contract) Strategic plan: 25-year strategic plan (2014-2040). Assessment results for Sitatu fresh famers cooperative
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/ challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Strong leadership composition.
Articulates path to achieving the
vision.
Need to improve on
organizational direction and
targets.
0
Adaptive Capacity Able to measure performance and
progress of the coop.
Still in early stages of
building relationships.
0
Management Capacity
Understands financial reporting
and audits.
Manager/chairman experience in
coop. management.
Budget constraints 0
110
Operational Capacity Legally registered.
Have a physical office
Insufficient information
management for lack of
computerized system.
0
Supply, Processing and Marketing
Doing well in dairy value chain. Current status does very
little as regards horticultural
value chains.
1
Productivity and
Financial Performance
Above average turnover.
Current ratio is good.
Need to return to
horticultural engagement.
0
Average capacity and Performance Score/ Index 0.2
Summary of Sitatu Fresh Farmers’ Cooperative Society The cooperative has wide membership composed of youthful and elderly people. Its vision is to reach the whole ward and beyond. At its inception it undertook French beans production for export on contract with a certain company. It was reported that along the way the company swindled the farmers of their produce/proceeds. The farmers got
disappointed and sought to something else, thus Dairy. The coop. has large farmer base in Sitatunga ward. It has a small vehicle for milk transportation. The plan for 2018 is to engage in Avocado, soya and export crops cultivation.
2.15 UASIN GISHU COUNTY ASSESSMENT REPORTS BY SBO
2.15.1 KAPTELDON HORTICULTURAL FARMERS
Background of cooperative Location: Kapseret Subcounty, Uasin Gishu County Registered: 2014 Operational date: 26th August 2014 Members: Registered members then, 30 (18F 12M) current 72 (35F 37M) Production: 2.5tons weekly, 10tons per month Share capital: No money in the account Turnover: 5 million per year but all money goes to individual farmer accounts Other activities: Nursery selling of seedlings, dairy and maize production Staffing: No staff employed Strategic plan: No strategic plan in place
Table 2: Assessment results for Kapteldon Horticultural Farmers
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Mission and vision articulated well
Board has good representation of
women and youth with wide range of
skills.
AGM and elections held regularly
Roles clearly specified and
discharged
Mission needs to be articulated to
member
Strategic plan and goals not
developed
Manager lacks experience in
cooperative management
0.33
Adaptive capacity Have strong network of partners with
ASDSP, USAID KAVES, County
government, Exporters
Have member training and
information sharing
Limited member involvement -
mainly during AGMs
Partnerships not formalized
Performance not recorded and
reviewed 0.2
Management
capacity
Management accessed finances from
ASDSP for capacity building
Financial reports not audited and
not presented to members
Lack of HR system policy 0.42
111
Management has ability to develop
budgets and execute.
Inadequate qualified staff in key
positions
Operation capacity
Have computers and printers
Adequate access to power
Currently constructing a permanent
office
Information management is not
computerized
Lack documented operational
procedures
Lack a strong asset base
Inadequate member
communication 0
Supply,
Processing and marketing
Have a wide membership base for
produce collection
Adequate extension service offered
to members
Adequate skills and support in crop
protection and conservation
Low produce intake during dry
periods
Lack of input store for farmers
Have no access to a cold storage
facility
Have no testing produce facility
Inadequate produce grading at
produce collection centers
Challenges of value addition
facilities. 0.27
Productivity and financial performance
High sales turnover
Good farmer payment rates 75%
Volumes produced are quite low
0
Average capacity and Performance Score/ Index 0.24
SUMMARY Kapteldon farmers group has a great potential to produce huge volumes of passion fruits because the group has a
good balance of youth and women, but most farmers do not irrigate especially during the dry season when prices are very high. The group also needs to recruit more farmers to build a strong base. Passion fruit require a lot of inputs and is usually affected by a lot of diseases and pest. The good chemicals recommended by most buyers are quite expensive. Lack of an established inputs store where members can access inputs at subsidized prices affects the production and quality of the produce. The potential of the group is great especially if the farmers can be supplied with water to enable them produce year-round which will also improve the quality and the marketable volumes. From the assessment results Kapteldon farmers group has various challenges especially in leadership. Management of cooperatives requires a good background in financial operations and management skills in general. This is key especially if the cooperative is to invest members’ money and source for support from external sources. Lack of experienced manager in this group has led to inadequate use of financial information to be circulated to members. Marketing of produce as a group but not putting money in the group account has also contributed to the account being
dormant. This is not favorable for the group especially when the group wishes to access credit for members. The group officials decide to perform all activities especially technical and management of the group which could be done by one or two qualified staff. The group has not computerized their systems, yet they have a laptop and a printer. Produce delivery and sale to various buyers has not been documented. The turnover per year for the group is high but this is not reflected in their accounts. This has made them not to have a strong asset base. The group also lacks a grading and sorting shade which is done by the exporter which reduces the profits that goes to members. After grading produce that fails export quality standards should be processed this is not possible due to lack of value addition facilities. Again, produce that is harvested and the buyers do not turn up to collect also deteriorate due to lack of cold storage.
2.15.2 KIMOLUET FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD
Background of cooperative Location: Segero/Barsombe ward, Soy Sub County, Uasin Gishu County Registered: 2017 Operational date: 13th July 2017 Members: Registered members, 40 (13F 27M) Production: 65 tons per season, sold to local traders
Share capital: 590,000/= Turnover: 5,000,000/= per season Other activities: Maize production and dairy production Staffing: No staff employed
112
Strategic plan: Strategic plan in place
Table 2: Assessment results Kimoluet Farmers’ Co-Operative Society Ltd
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity
Score
Leadership Mission and vision articulated well
Strategic plan developed
AGM and elections held regularly
Roles clearly specified and
discharged
Mission needs to be
communicated to member
Strategic plan needs to be shared
among all members
Board lacks a wide range of skills,
women and youth are not well
represented
Low member mobilization 0
Adaptive capacity Strategic plan developed
Have strong network of partners
with input, companies and buyers
from markets and County
government,
Have member training and
information sharing
Strategic plan needs to be shared
among all members
Limited member involvement -
mainly during AGMs
Partnerships not formalized
Performance not recorded and
reviewed 0
Management
capacity
Have an experienced manager in
cooperative management
Management accessed finances
from County cooperative to finance
members
Management has ability to develop
budgets and execute.
Lack of HR system policy
Inadequate qualified staff in key
positions
Financial reports not audited and
not presented to members
0.25
Operation capacity Adequate access to power
Currently constructing a permanent
office
Adequate member communication
Information management is not
computerized
Lack documented operational
procedures
Lack a strong asset base 0.4
Supply, Processing
and marketing
Have a wide membership base for
produce collection
Adequate extension service offered
to members
Adequate skills and support in crop
protection and conservation
Lack of input store for farmers
Have no access to a cold storage
facility
Have no testing produce facility
Inadequate produce grading at
produce collection centers
Challenges with value addition. 0.18
Productivity and
financial
performance
High sales turnover
Ability to repay loans efficiently
Low profit margin
Produce losses due to rejection
0
Average capacity and Performance Score/ Index 0.17
SUMMARY
Kimoluet farmers’ society has a great potential to produce huge volumes of tomatoes because they can all access
water for irrigation and all farmers own large tracks of land for cultivation. The use of water pumps to pump water
directly to their farm increases the cost of production because averagely the smallest parcel requires at least 20 liters
of petrol. This cost could be reduced especially if an irrigation scheme would be established to serve the members.
Alternatively, farmers would also reduce their costs of production if they would pump the water into tanks and use
drip irrigation instead of overhead which increases disease incidences.
From the assessment results there is need to include women and youth so that more will also be attracted to join the
society. Lack of implementation of the strategic plan will also slow the development of the society. As a society, there
113
is need to employ qualified staff to handle various issues instead of the board handling all issues including management
and technical issues. The manager has experience having worked in other societies but failure to prepare financial
reports and circulating to members will not move the group forward because members normally want to be informed
of how their monies are handled.
The group has access to power but has not seen the need to computerize their systems, yet they access credit for
members and cannot put all this necessary information in a system. Though the society is still young they need to
have a focus so as to develop a plan of how to establish a good asset base. Tomato is a crop that has a lot of pests
and diseases and the recommended chemicals are quite expensive, yet the society does not have an input store where
members can access inputs at a subsidized rate. This makes production cost for members to be high thus reducing
their profits. Tomatoes are highly perishable and when produce is ready for harvesting and markets are not available
and farmers face a lot of post harvests loses. This is because the society lacks cold storage facility to store the produce
even when there is glut. Many occasions the buyers determine the prices of the produce because farmers lack sorting
and grading shed to grade and sell their produce according to quality. Finally, a lot of produce goes to waste due
challenges with value addition because what is not taken fresh is always disposed as waste.
2.15.3 KUTSI FARMERS C.B.O
Background of cooperative Location: Kuinet/Kapsuswa ward, Soy Sub County, Uasin Gishu County Registered: 2015 Operational date: 11th February 2015 Members: Registered members 33, currently 64 (30F:34M) Production: 7500kg per week, low season 4200kg per week passion fruit sold to Uganda, Woni exporters, Nelbark and essential seed processors Share capital: 150,000 Turnover: 16,000,000 per year Other activities: Avocado production and dairy production
Staffing: One staff employed Strategic plan: Strategic plan in place Table 2: Assessment results KUTSI FARMERS C.B.O
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity Score
Leadership Mission and vision articulated well
Board has good representation of
women and youth with wide range
of skills.
AGM and elections held regularly
Roles clearly specified and
discharged
Mission needs to be
communicated to all member
Low member mobilization
0
Adaptive capacity Have strong network of partners
with input companies, exporters
and County government,
Have member training and
information sharing
Limited member involvement -
mainly during AGMs
Partnerships not formalized
Performance not recorded and
reviewed
0
Management capacity
Management has drilled a borehole
for water supply to members
Management has ability to develop
budgets and execute.
Lack an experienced manager in
cooperative management
Financial reports not audited and
not presented to members
Lack of HR system policy
Inadequate qualified staff in key
positions 0.17
Operation capacity Adequate access to power
Adequate member communication
Information management is not
computerized
0
114
Lack documented operational
procedures
Lack a strong asset base
Supply, Processing and marketing
Have a wide membership base for
produce collection
Adequate extension service offered
to members
Have adequate skills and support in
crop protection and conservation
Low produce intake during dry
season
Lack of input store for farmers
Have no access to a cold storage
facility
Have no testing produce facility
Inadequate produce grading at
produce collection centers
Challenges with value addition. 0.27
Productivity and
financial performance
High sales turnover
Good farmer payment rates (75%)
Low profit margin
0
Average capacity and Performance Score/ Index 0.17
SUMMARY
KUTSI Farmers C.B.O has a great potential to grow because they have a good market and are offered good prices for
their produce. Their location is an advantage because they are very near town and accessibility is good to buyers.
Furthermore, if they are to value add their passion fruit to ready to drink juice they are next to a university which will
offer a big market for their product. The only problem the group experiences is production of low volumes during the
dry season. The group has borehole water drilled but distribution to members has not been done. The group also has
a piece of land and given equipment’s can start processing juice especially for produce that does not meet the export
market requirements.
From the assessment results the organization has a good membership of youth and women which is good especially
when it comes to the area which they can put under the crop because they are very active. The group also has a good
network with partners although none of the partnerships have been formalized. They also lack an experienced manager
in cooperative management which has led to the group not developing financial reports to be circulated to members.
This has also seen the group not depositing money in the group account and developing a good asset base. The group
is near town and has access to powers but has not purchased a computer to for information management. They have
a wide membership base, but members cannot access inputs cheaply given that the group has no input store, yet
passion fruit pesticides are quite costly. The group also lacks cold store facilities and testing facilities given that a lot
of chemicals are used in production which may lead to chemical residues in the produce. Grading and sorting is done
at individual farm level which result to different grades and this would have been sorted if they had a common sorting
and grading shed.
2.15.4 MUSTARD SEED AMI- FARMERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
Background of cooperative Location: Tembelio ward, Moiben Sub County, Uasin Gishu County Registered: 2015 Operational date: 28th August 2015
Members: Registered members then 70 24F; 46M, 46 (12F 34M) currently, Production: 6 tons per week, 2tons sold to Vegpro exporters Share capital: 2,959,000 Turnover: 3,000,000/= per season Other activities: Agro vet stores, Input distribution, dairy production, coffee
Avocado, passion and macadamia production Staffing: 2 permanent staff, 5 casual staff employed Strategic plan: Strategic plan in place, 3-year 2016 – 2019 Table 2: Assessment results Mustard Seed Ami- Farmers’ Cooperative Society
Capacity Area Strengths Weaknesses/Challenges Capacity Score
115
Leadership Mission and vision articulated well
AGM and elections held regularly
Board has a wide range of skills, women
and youth are well represented
Roles clearly specified and discharged
Mission needs to be
communicated to
member
Low member mobilization
0
Adaptive capacity Have a well-developed strategic plan
Have strong network of partners with input,
companies and exporters from and County
government,
Have member training and information
sharing
Performance recorded and periodically
reviewed.
Strategic plan needs to
be shared among all
members
Not all Partnerships have
been formalized
Limited member
involvement
0
Management
capacity
Have an experienced manager in
cooperative management
Financial reports regularly audited and
presented to members
Management accessed finances from
County cooperative to finance members
Management has ability to develop budgets
and execute.
Have qualified staff in key positions
Lack of HR system policy
0
Operation capacity Adequate access to power
Have well computerized systems
Have a strong asset base
Adequate member communication
0
Supply, Processing and marketing
Have a wide membership base for produce
collection
Established an inputs store
Have a shed for produce sorting and
grading
Adequate extension service offered to
members
Adequate skills and support in crop
protection and conservation
Have no access to a cold
storage facility
Have no testing produce
facility
Inadequate produce
grading at produce
collection centers
Challenges with value
addition. 0.27
Productivity and financial performance
High sales turnover
Ability to repay loans efficiently
Good farmer payment rates (over 75%)
Produce losses due to
rejection
0
Average capacity and Performance Score/ Index 0.05
SUMMARY
This cooperative has a great potential in horticulture production for both vegetables and fruits. This is because all members are committed and can produce throughout the year through irrigation. Most of the farmers have basic education and this make them easy to understand technical trainings in horticulture. The inputs stores make it easy for members to access inputs timely and at reasonable prices and this contributes to maintaining volumes and quality of produce. The cooperative also accesses loans from the county government at low interest rates and this money is used to loan members who use it for production. The cooperative in question can be rated highly because they have what it takes in all the capacities areas they were being evaluated on. This is because with good leadership, an experienced manager with very good qualifications the organization can go very far. This coupled with the fact that the organization has a strategic plan and a strong network with partners can enable the group to collaborate in various activities especially where they cannot do it alone. Modern technology is always associated with development because it creates efficiencies and effectiveness in most systems.
The society has a well computerized system and has employed qualified staff in key areas especially those dealing in finances and technical issues. The membership base of this society is wide, and this can give them a good volume of produce especially if they venture into contracts with export companies. Finally, the major challenge facing this society
116
is maintaining quality of produce due to lack of cold storage and testing facilities. Value addition of various produce especially passion is also still a challenge.
